'An unusual case in the U. 8. Court for China hae now been settled, it was "learned on Tuesday, Nov. 26. The case was that of 'Messrs, Nickells, K. A. Person, and Underwood, "doing business under' the name of Associated Life Underwriters, against the Cownchina Ca, Inc. in' which the plaintifis asked the Court to order the defendant company to declare a dividend. The shares of the plaintifis in Crowrchina Ca. have now been purchased by Mr. Matt Axelrood, president of the defendant corporation, for a figure the exact amount of which was not stated The case war dismissed by the Court on Nov. 27.
Counsel concerned in the action were Mr. Myron Wiener, of Messrs, Rodger & Ca, for the plaintifis, and Mr. F. J. Schuhl, of Messrs. Schuh Davies & N.E-Lirton, forthe det lants Raven Case Again Adjourned After strong objections from counsel for the defence, Judge Milton 3.
helmick again postponed the hearing of the cases against Messrs. F. J. Raven, J. Warner Brown, and A. Driscoll in the U. S. Court for China last Wednesday. Criminal charges were that the unfortunate person liable some other player. He did not know preferred in August against the three would be forced to continue to who that player was, men by the U. S. District Attorney on information arising out of the closing of the American-Oriental Banking Corp.; the American-Oriental Finance Corp. and the Raven Trust Ca. in May last Originally set down for hearing on October 29, ihe cases were adjourned for one month, in order that two witnesses might be brought here by the prosecution from the United States testify at the trial. Dr. George Sellelt, on behalf of Mr. Felthan Watson, the District Attorney, on Wednesday asked for a further' ad-Journment, as, due to the illness of the Disiriet Aitorney, the prosecution had been unable to complete its investigation. After an argument which lasted the whole morning, Judge Helmick ordered that the cases come before the Court on January 3, 1936, Presenting his motion, Dr. Seltet' said that the prosecution requested the Court to reset the case for hear~ ing not earlier than January 2, 1936 Reasons for this request were as fol When information was filed with the Court on August 31, 1995, the District Attorney had reason to beeve that one of the defendants Intended to leave the Court's jurisdic~ tion permanently; the investigation was then not complete; the District Attorney had to leave Shanghai for about eight days on other business; he fell ill on October 7, and had had very little time to devote to the case: able to attend his fice for about two hours a day; he had. been assistes since October 10 by Dr, Sellett, who, ince that date, had devoted all his time to the ease; but Dr. Sellett required further time In order to pre-Sent the case for the U. S. Govern: ment, properly.
has been assumed," continued eet, "that for the past two or three mon:"'—or even prior to the fling Of the informativn—T have been actively" assisting the District, Attorne in the preparation of the trial of this ease." That Is not true. The informa-ton was fled by the District Atlorney a result of his own work, and 1 had nothing to do with the prepara {tion or fling of it. T received-my Information from the newspapers, in the same way as the rest of the Shanghai. publi This was not a case, say. of simple assault, where there were only a small number of witnesses to be examined—find where the investigation could oe completed within a few days. There were "voluminous records to. through, and the Investigation includ [ed exhaustive enquiries in Now York and San Francisco, where the offices of E. A. Perce & Ca, were locat He also' wished to point out that where in the United States the Dis: {trict Attorney would have a number of assistants to help him. not to mention men from the Department of Justice, here in China the work al! evolved on one man, The defence wanted the case to come to trial before the Government had had time to prepare its case; but the delay was beyond the prosecution's control." Furthermore, the two wit-essex had arrived from the United States; and after hearing their evid-fence, he despatched the followin, Raven' in Tientsin:—telegram to Mr. R. T. Evans, Int, fective. "Will enter nolle fle new information. Because of facts disclosed since arrival witnesses from America new information wilt probably based upon theory of ease ditering from previous information in material respects. Have advised Franklin (Mr. €.'S. Franklin, counsel for the other two defendants) of foregoing and he objects Yo. postponement if. trial" proceeds Pending' Information but T believe he {ales view postponement will also. be desired by defendants 1€ new informa [on is led. Watson stil Int but tmnproving and' will probably assist him try case. Telegraph' whether you agree trial" December 16" assuming new. In= formation Mled before end November, Dr. Sellett said that he had been appointed Special Assistant to the District Attorney on the authority of the US. Attorney-General, Objecting on behalf of Mr. Raven Mr, Evans said that he had objected at the first postponement of the case. At that time, the Court stated that it could not conceive of anything which would influence it to postpone the matter further. There was doubt that the District Attorney' hid been seriously ill, although he was now able to attend his office. He wished draw attention to the fact that was quite within the Districy Attorney's powers to apply as early as j September for assistance.
He appreciated the suffering and pain the District Attorney had under-{igone, he appreciated the fact he would like to have tried the case himself. fand he did not propose to criticise him. But the Government was open to criticism f6r doing nothing about the cases, and it had shown a lack of diligence in the matter.
"I do not think it necessary," he went on," to emphasize the injury and hardship placed on the defendants by the ill-advised motion of the Government in this case. but I do profest against any further delays
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.