The case of the United States v. Meyer I. Greenstone was heard the U. S. Court for China on Thursday morning, before his Tonour Judge C. S. Lobingier. The accused was charged with obtaining money under false pretences in that he induced Mr. Bruno Arndt to invest $4,750 in the Cosmos Commercial Corporation, falsely state ing that the corporation was registered in the U. S. Consulate-General at Shanghai, that its capitalization had been increased from $50,000 to $250,000, and that Greenstone had invested $7,500, and others had to the amount of $18,000.
Mr. L. G. Husar, District Attorney, appeared for the prosecution and Mr. M. L.. Heen for the defence. Mr. J. T. Wright, Vice-Consul in charge of the Shipping Office of the U. S. Consulate-General, testified that the Cosmos Commercial Corporation was regis-tored on October 9, 1922.
Mr. Arndt, the complainant gave evidence that the situation hag been falsely represented to him, as set. forth in the information given above, in consequence of which he had entered into a contract, the specifications of which had boom duly kept by him, and that he had invested the sum of $4,750 as a result of these representations. The only written proof of the first two alleged false representations was contained in a circular letter issued by the company in September, 1992, whereas it was 4 matter of record that the company was not registered until October 9, 199%, and the increased capitalization was not made a matter of record until October 11. 1992. Mr, Arndt also stated that he had induced Prince Tsai Sun to invest $12,200 in the corporation and that he felt morally responsible for that amount This closed the case for the prosecution and Mr. Been made a motion to dismiss the case without the hearing of testimony for the defence, basing his motion on the fact that while the company was not registered at the time the prospectus was issued, nor had the capitalization been increased, both matters were comnlcted shortly after that time, and Mr. Arndt had been a party to this arratigemen> and was not deceived in the least. With regard to the alleged statement that investments were made which proved not to have been so placed, there was no written statement or token to prove that ani according to the laws of this juris-action any oral statement to this effect. would not constitute an offence, The defence, Mr. Heer further stated, was fully able 10 prove the absolute innocence of the defendant.
Mr. Husar stated that with regard to the first two claims he would leave it without argument with the' Judge to pass upon the question as to whether they were material, and as to the third point he agreed with Mr. Been in his interpretation of tha technical point at issue. Had the infor-motion as stated and the testi-many as brought out in the Court been laid before him previously (Mr. Husar has just returned from the States) he would have been obliged to deny the complaint. Hence he joined in the motion for dismissal The Judge stated that he would issue an order as soon as possible.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.