MacDonald read out a letter which he had written to coursd for the plaintiffs in which he applied for Translations of various documents relating to the case, Default in tutorest On October 3, the quarterly pays ment of interest became due on the mortgage, but the morlyagors, who had Just raised $20,500, were unable to meet It, and failed to pay it. On January 15 following, the Shanghai Land and Finance Company purported mortgage the lease to a Japanese Jawyer mimed- Okamoto, 0. secure Toan of $000,000, and two days later they found the Shanghai Land Company became w registered. company. The owner of the mortgagor's firm also was the owner of $240,000 worth of shares in the dete The mortgagee had been en prived of collecting any rent, but According to the Tease the " total amount of the rent had been paid whole year in advance. The com pany was then transferred 10 a so-called British company.
Mr. MeDonald—This is worse than prejudice.
'My, Reader Harrls—It has been' stated by Chinese Courts that the transfer was w fraud.
"My learned friend, os a rule," staled Mr. MeDonald, "is the acme of courtesy, I am not yet making riy suggestion to the contrary, but apparently like Pharaoh, the hearts of hig clients were hardened, and they "endeavoured to make. bricks without straw."
Quoting from the aMdavit of Mr. J.B. Manley, of Messrs, Mortimer, Reid and Slee, and managing director of the defendant company, Mr. Me-Donald said that on January 15, 1995, the lease of the defendant company was mortgaged to Mr. Okamoto, February 1, the Shanghai La and Finance Company signed to the defendant company a Tease on the premises. The defendant. company had collected the lease in respect of the premises in the amount of $11,094, March 7, 1935, and since March 30 defendant company had been collecting a regular sum in respect of the Tease, Since the order of the Second Special District Court in favour of plaintiffs most of the tenants on the property had ceased to pay any rent. whatever, and a8 long as the The Judge—Am I concerned with that? ban Mr, Reader Harris contended that this fet was the concern of the Court, and quoted a well-known case to support his contention. The defendant company, he continued, had never replied or put in any aMdavits with regard to the action. Citing the affidavit of the insurance manager of the plainti company, Mr. Reader Harris further brought to light that the present lease of the property in question was invalid, as, at the time lease, the property was mortgaged to the Central Trust Company. The Chinese Supreme Court in Nanking collect rent from them, most of them Would not pay rent io anyone. would be very dificult for anyone to collect the aireers of rent due, reason of the action taken by plaintlit in the District Court the defendant company had been unable to pay to. Mr. Okamoto the interest due en the mortgage lease, Defendants "might suiter loss of the lease, and other damages, stated Mr, McDonald, and hho could not see what urgency there was for an interim injunction.
Mr, Reader Harris said that he had Jittle' to add to what he had stated in opening the case. After quoting
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.