160
67
139
Upon the 9th of April the plaintiff took out two summons calling on the defendant to show cause (1) why all proceedings should not be stayed until the defendant gave security for payment of. (2) why a commission should not issue for the examination of Eugene Schwoerer at Paris.
The defendant's Attorneys under my advice took out a counter summons dated the 12th of April calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not decide as to its jurisdiction in the suit and why the two writs of attachment should not be set aside and why the plaintiff should not pay the defendant's costs and whatever damages the Court might award to the defendant on account of the suit and of the two writs of attachment.
Before a writ of attachment issues the plaintiff is obliged by the Code section 82 (4) to enter into bond with sureties to pay whatever costs, charges, and damages the Court may award. In the present case the amount of the Bond is $320,000 and the plaintiffs' surety is the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation.
The three summons were set down for the same day and it was arranged that they should be heard in Court not in Chambers. Accordingly parties appeared upon the 15th of April Mr. Waylar being counsel for the plaintiff, and I appeared for the defendant. Both Judges were on the bench in their robes and the matter was called on; the defendant's summons being taken first, after some short discussion and while I was addressing...