through me an application to the Consular Court in Bushire,
which he was equally at liberty to make direct. I then
gave him to read King's Regulation No. 1 of 1926 regarding
dealings in opium, and pointed out that the Court at
Bushire might conceivably find objections to taking action
on his applikation, connected with this or other Regula ti ons.
Mr. Namasi was confident that his olain was not affected
by the Regul at ions.
Later he brought round, and read to me a draft of
his proposed application to the Court of the District
Judge at Bushire, which, I understand, he will send to
Bushire at once by the hands of a special representative,
to whom he will give a Power of Attorney and authority to
pay expenses. The case appears complicated because (1)
the documents relating to the contract are in the Hongkong
office of Messrs. Namazi, and Str. Samaxi does not know
the exact sam still due with inter at. (11) he does not
know exactly how many chests could reasonably be attached
in the Customs at Bashire as the equivalent of his olnim,
whether 180 or more, (iii) until the last moment before
the chests are passed out of the Customs his representative
will not know whether the Bahbehani or Kasaruni firm is
the seller to his Chinese debtor, and how many chests,
160 or less, are sold to this particular Chinese debtor,
(iv) Chinese subjects do not enjoy extra-territorial
rights in rersia, nor are they actionable in a British
Consular Court: would the British Consular court be able
to obtain the consent of the Persian Customs to set on a
direct request, or would the Karguzarate have to be the
channel?
Hr. Namasi became more communicative, as this long
second
Page 90Page 91