26

APPENDIX  B  401
by  the  Russian  Consular  Court,  but  he  felt  that  he  was  bound
by  the  statute  ;  if  he  was  wrong,  of  course  there  was  occasion
for  an  appeal,  and  if  the  Russian  authorities  were  not  satisfied
with  the  judgment,  of  course,  after  it  had  been  reviewed  by  the
Privy  Council,  they  could  move  for  a  new  Order  in  Council.
The  Court  then  rose.
Shanghai,  May  3,  1906
Before  Sir  Havilland  de  Sausmarez,  Judge
Joseph  John  Gilmore  v.  Henry  Bennertz
The  hearing  of  this  case  was  concluded.  Mr.  W.  N.  Symonds
appeared  for  the  plaintiff  and  Mr.  Loftus  E.  P.  Jones  for  the
defendant.
Mr.  Jones  said  the  only  other  evidence  which  he  would  like
to  put  before  the  Court  was  a  copy  of  the  judgment  which  was
given  in  the  case  against  Mr.  Bennertz  in  which  Tsau  was  plaintiff.
The  case  was  heard  before  the  Consular  Court  at  Changsha.
Counsel  also  had  a  copy  of  the  claim  made  by  Mr.  Bennertz
upon  which  this  Tls.5,200  was  paid  ;  also  a  letter  from  Mr.
Frazer,  British  Consul-General  at  Hankow,  with  regard  to  that
claim.
Defendant  was  recalled.  Witness  put  in  a  claim  for  an
indemnity,  and  the  document  produced  was  a  despatch  he  received ­
  from  Mr.  Frazer  in  relation  to  the  matter.  (Counsel
read  the  despatch  to  show  that  there  were  no  profits  contemplated
in  this  indemnity  ;  it  was  solely  made  up  of  Tls.400  a  month
compensation.)  Witness  said  at  the  time  Mr.  Gilmore  left
Changsha  for  Hankow  the  liabilities  of  the  business  exceeded
Tls.5,200  ;  and  at  the  time  the  indemnity  was  received  the
liabilities  exceeded  Tls.5,200.
Mr.  Symonds  put  in  a  letter  written  by  Mr.  Woo  to  Mr.
Gilmore  dated  April  20,  1906,  in  which  he  said  the  matter
was  settled  between  Bennertz  and  Gilmore  before  the  latter
left  for  Hankow.  Woo  proceeded  to  relate  the  understanding
which  he  said  was  come  to.
Witness,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Symonds,  said  he  was  not  satisfied
with  an  indemnity  of  Tls.5,200.  The  Tls.25,000  was  not  the
rest  of  the  indemnity.
Mr.  Symonds  produced  a  statement  in  Mr.  Giles’s  handwriting
of  the  payments  witness  had  made  out  of  the  Tls.25,000  up  to
February  15,  1906.  Counsel  pointed  out  that  according  to
this  statement  there  was  a  balance  of  nearly  Tls.  1,700.  What
had  witness  done  with  that  ?