in answer to Mr. Rodger's questions ae. witness stated that he had never known o:. robbery involving such number of men being committed in anghai before. The witness also stated that he did not believe that negligence on the part of the godown owners was involved in such a case and with reference to the fact that the two Chinese watchmen, employed by the defendants had not patrolled the wharf, said that at this time it would have been dangerous for them to do so because of the proximity of Japanese, soldiers. The witness, when examined by Mr. Davies, told the court that after the robberies had occurred the defendant had increased their staff of two Chinese watchmen by adding four Russians.
Upon the conclusion of testimony three employees of the defendant. Mr. Davies. in summarizing arguments for the plaintiff. told the court that the plaintiff was guiltysof negligence in not retaining a sufficient number of guards and that since there hod been no fighting taking place in the Yangtzepoo area for some time the term "hostilities" could not properly be applied to the conditions ing at the time of the Therefore, according to the the defendant was respon goods stored in their godown,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.