Chief Justice's list. It is true a quibble might be raised that the application was not refused, but this would only be a quibble. The Plaintiffs did not wish a special jury and so applied for leave to transfer to another Court, which was agreed to by the Chief Justice.
There is, however, another and a very important case to which no reference is made in the Chief Justice's list. This is one in which Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co., are interested, viz.:- The China Flour Milling Company versus Messrs. Arnhold, Karberg & Co., which I understand is to come in for hearing on the 4th instant and which involves a sum of some $250,000. The question at issue is, so I understand, whether Messrs. Arnhold Karberg & Co. have correctly carried out their contract with the Milling Company and supplied them with an ice machine capable of turning out ice of equal quality and clearness as that already manufactured by the Hongkong Tea Company. It would appear that this is eminently a case for a Jury.
Application on behalf of Messrs. Arnhold Karberg & Co. for a special jury was made so long ago as 27th April, 1909, and refused on the ground that the question involved was one of law and not of fact, but still this case does not appear in the Chief Justice's list.
There may be other omissions of which I have no knowledge; it may, however, be worthy of note that the lists furnished by the Chief Justice only bring us up to the end of May of this year while his letter is dated 19th July, 1909. The lists should be up to date even though no cases may have occurred between 31st June and 19th July.
Before proceeding to comment on the Chief Justice's letter, I now give a brief note on each of the four cases referred to by the Chief Justice in his second list and the two other cases I myself have brought forward:-
1st.