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.
womofond of mure of ecto-dub
syuk sila ni nuoi-ennaƒA bentges i ale to noltrow add no natok
1. del wat driw bezolone aceti ows Art
८
vo: [[sort all að soldat, tall wife worth ever,HÔM .190! batch US Resura de $ wodE
tott bettyje mord stal petrol, eneily bennuroso avail es88) bre barreta toad ovat ¿I do?rk beautes!
Sammu gronde VISV
ete 0 6 2. 1: 60 cod
* 10 soat er'd 10
wis 50 ot me a 200 goob shalt deriz sno?-
ad not hadna potests is alt to woven E
atust out to colzar-kbroo Dirten ing 8/10.
terawor Liv und inen pit na dove tak sturenteeb wheroo T
*N-DAKOTA ed binon deif «lnoktal % 10 wuld we hawaenon 17
In area bot- sq alt te ́ ́t beatvou z
€
T
de anti denda and I .stery turott at duif almottauh bed en yd Kuvions anotior ale to "sbro aut to estab
PARI IMG 1500 o*,000I „Jonat
WEASY A Uld to babking a to
nò a' na wwʻt add ranks, a nevis se anteb ol
tnom smo bus
nault to ero dost te tandas a na tud beartan esv vol, a datb
to ter
U to muda huja AGRI,dons of htand av 30220
.LARY AYSE AS
AL OF BIFA-UA
,800 £
Yavsvod,fall bronca d
James mi bong: 200 20 BIS ott mot of .eteligmanl
bus ..b? ..of make givet enben elt ranians mush Xen WD)
Bud Nď bet-one vffenbudo em (~tly? hua bisÍTAJUÊ
mog: how molévkbalu), Isminino wt at paineell not attenda[4 fatose a rot arrabrotch sild vɗ sham ass molt okfuge ne dide
et kaf wit to ataq mult co alde of Jusid sedmioo at Tym sti
nt horietaraid or or maso ads "ot yixqB OF GAW
.oitot balsut
etux aned ever! nysdrag abroría **** ***
wtfarchablet af ensưrudd ranty add mf not netfuge Viejong
exo muind para wit
eward afronta enna this wakirevn vindeyim əmilə
321
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
veraus Messrs. Arnhold, Karberg & 8o. 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 under-
-stand, 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 in-
-volved 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 onissions 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 lat. 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.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.