'Turning to the contract between the parties, Mr, Roeks said that the company had no right to borrow to the extent of $129,000, the amount of the contract. He' also argued the point as to whether the contract referred to "an actual cole: of an agreement to sell. A letter written by the defendant whereby he refused to provide any more bonds Unless furnished with more money was produced in evidence of the defendant': alleged breach of contract, If he broke the contract, he could not sue for damages.
Referring to' the set-off, defendant claimed that plaintifis refused to take delivery ofa certain number of bonds, but there had never been a request made to plaintiffs to take delivery of the bonds," In actual fact, there was no obligation upon plain iffs to take delivery of the bonds at any specific time, and they could not take delivery of them unless they ould sell them. No time was speci fled In the contract. Defendant had himself broken the contract, which wag in fact a fraud upon a third party.
Bond Transaction 'The winding up of a company through the interference of Chinese officialdom and through Belgium going off the gold standard was. described on July 10 when the case. brought by the Associated Tnvestments, Ltd, against Mr. Aaron E. 'Moses' was continued before Judge Court.
P. Grant Jones in H. M. Supreme
Tu evidence, Mr, Joseph Edwid Judah, managing director of the plaintiff company, said that he was shareholder in the" plaintiff firm,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.