f
R
347
The apology made by me in an earlier case I have
already referred to.
I have never at any time discussed Mixed Court matters with press representatives, nor am I in any way responsible for the views in the press, with some of which
I entirely disagree.
To Mr. Amoedo's contention that Chinese do not
obtain foreign protection to harbour themselves from punish-
They ment which they deserve, I can only reply that they do. are perfectly well aware that conduct and contracts appear in an entirely different light when judged according to Chinese and (say) Spanish standards. They are also well aware that it is
almost impossible for the complainant to prosecute his cloim successfully in (say) the Brazilian Court, when the only lawyer in Shanghai who knows anything about Brazilian law and prodedure is retained by the defendant. They are well aware that there are provisions in foreign laws requiring certain contracts to be in writing, though the same contracts could be enforced against them in the Mixed Court even if not in writing. They are well aware that a plaintiff generally gets disheartened at the difficulties and obstacles presented in
and prosecuting his claim against a chameleon like debtor,
prefers to cut his loss.
In addition there is the inevitable suggestion that
the consulate concerned obtains a financial benefit in exchange for the protection it offers and is therefore strongly biassed in favour of its protege. It is really more than a suggestion,
for