APPENDIX  B  409
of  getting  out  of  the  Police—of  course  that  does  not  lie  with
me _but  you  will  first  have  to  go  to  prison  for  one  month  with
hard  labour.
IN  THE  AMERICAN  CONSULAR  COURT  FOR  THE
DISTRICT  OF  HANGCHOW
Hangchow,  March  15,  1906
Before  Frederick  D.  Cloud,  Esq.,  American  Vice-Consul-incharge,
  Acting  Judicially,  and  J.  H.  Judson,  Esq.,  and
J.  Steinacher,  Esq.,  Associates.
In  the  matter  of  Sun  Zai-ling,  Yee  Tsung-lien,  Sun  Yu-ling,
and  ChowDing-ho,  Plaintiffs,  v.  The  Southern  Methodist
Mission,  and  Thomas  A.  Hearn,  and  Edward  Pilley,
Defendants.
In  this  action  A.  S.  P.  White-Cooper,  Esq.,  appeared  for  the
plaintiffs,  and  F.  M.  Brooks,  Esq.,  of  the  law  firm  of  Andrews  &amp;
Brooks,  represented  the  defendants.
Judgment
This  is  an  action  brought  by  certain  Chinese  citizen;  against
the  Southern  Methodist  Mission,  an  American  institution,  represented ­
  by  Thomas  A.  Hearn  and  Edward  Pilley,  of  Huchow,  to
recover  certain  alleged  temple  lands  which  have  been  purchased  by,
and  are  now  in  the  possession  of  the  Southern  Methodist  Mission,
in  which  the  plaintiffs  allege  that  the  said  mission  is  in  wrongful
possession  of  the  said  temple  lands  ;  that  as  a  result  of  repeated
protests  against  such  possession  by  the  plaintiffs,  the  defendant
mission,  or  certain  representatives  of  the  defendant  mission,
entered  into  an  agreement  of  compromise  with  the  plaintiffs
whereby,  and  according  to  the  terms  of  which,  certain  lands
were  to  be  restored  to  plaintiffs  on  condition  of,  and  in  consideration ­
  of  the  said  plaintiffs  paying  to  the  defendants  the
sum  of  Tls.2,000  ;  that  the  plaintiffs  have  duly  paid  to  the
defendants  the  said  consideration  of  Tls.2,000,  which  sum  of
money  is  still  in  the  possession  of,  or  under  the  control  of  the
defendants,  but  that  the  said  defendants  have  illegally,  wrongfully, ­
  and  in  breach  of  the  terms  of  the  agreement,  refused  tc
abide  by  and  carry  out  its  terms  and  surrender  the  land  agreed
therein  to  be  surrendered  to  the  plaintiffs  ;  that  by  reason  of
the  defendants’  wrongful  breach  of  this  agreement,  and  by
reason  of  the  defendants’  wrongful  trespass  on  the  said  land,
the  plaintiffs  have  suffered  damages  through  (1)  the  defendants’