In a brief reply M. Premet characterized the statements of M. d'Auxion de Ruffé as groundless, declaring that the accounts already rendered by the board were prefectly clear, and he asserted that the plaintiffs could not say they had not been allowed to inspect the documents they mentioned. In fact, he said, they had not brought any evidence to show that they had been denied access to the papers at any time. time ago the Chinese press alleged that most of rice profiteers hid their cargo in godowns in Pootung.
M. Premet went on to contend that no action could be maintained against the Auditorium, a societe
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.