The plaintiff drew. several cheques 370 on the defendants bank according to the ut, but comi ing July 4, 1936, the Gefetidant suddenly refused to honour these cheques, it was alleged. The defendant was further alleged to have made public the plaintiff's affairs im & Chinese newspaper advertisement which was shown in court, and this publication was said to have so seriously damaged the plaintiff's credit Min that, being unable to borrow money from elsewhere, he was forced to sell his boat for only $186,606, although an insurance assess the figure at er € Dei let of the Ship was of 1937, causing the plaintiff to lose a do big profit for which a claim would be made.
On behalf of the defendant, Mr. wel Chung-shu drew the distinction between two equal parts of the $50,000 Advanced by his client, one of which Fuyn represented an overdraft, and said that his client never retused to pay. As a matter of fact, he said, his client had paid 22 times, but porarily reserved the right for making ts because another shipping j. firm disputed the plaintiffs right of ownership of the Boat in dispute. He alleged that the plaintiff refused to register the investment with the Italian Consular authorities, which fact might nullity the whole agreement. E He pointed out that at the time of agreement the plaintiff said that he was the sole proprietor of the ship and that he had no debts. He alleged that investigations later enabled his client to find out that the plaintiff was a mere liquidator, and that he had debts. He said that the plaintiff did not use the borrowed money only for repairing his ship. Some of the money was used for paying a doctor's bill and another bill which had nothing to do with shipping business he alleged.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.