Aitken J:

Unfortunately for himself the Plaintiff decided to be his own legal draftsman, and in that capacity he drew up the plaint in this action, which is in itself a lengthy document divided into 32 paragraphs, and to which is annexed a large bundle of other documents of varying degrees of relevancy and irrelevancy.

He took this plaint with its annexures to the Registry here, where it was admitted by the learned Assistant Registrar on 13 April last. Here again it was unfortunate that the learned Assistant Registrar did not consult me before he admitted this very verbose, confused and complicated plaint, because had he done so I should certainly have advised him to return it to the Plaintiff for substantial amendments to make it briefer and clearer.

After it had thus been admitted and filed, copies of it together with the usual form of Summons were served on all the five Defendants. Appearances were entered by or for all of them, but the appearance entered for the fourth Defendant was defective in that it gave an address for service outside the jurisdiction. The Plaintiff took advantage of this irregularity to apply, by Summons of 1 June last, to have the fourth Defendant's appearance struck out and judgment entered against him in default of appearance. When this Summons came before me on 21 June last, Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Farr, so that he was no longer acting without legal advice and assistance. The order I then made, striking out the fourth Defendant's appearance and entering judgment against him in default of appearance, was set aside in so far it purported to enter judgment against him, on 1 July last, by which date a proper appearance had been entered on behalf of the fourth Defendant.

About the same time as he was seeking to snatch a judgment in default against the fourth Defendant, the Plaintiff, as attorney of a lady named Ong Seoh Heong, was applying to have the third Defendant adjudicated a bankrupt. In this application he was successful, and on 25 June last the third Defendant was adjudicated a bankrupt. Against this adjudication the third Defendant filed a notice of appeal, but as she failed to perfect her appeal within one month of the 25 June last in accordance with the provisions of s. 20 of the Courts Enactment, it must be taken to have been abandoned. It should also be mentioned, I think, that in those bankruptcy proceedings Mr. Farr appeared for the petitioning creditor and Mr. Seenivasagam for the third Defendant.

By 10 August last all the Defendants had filed their statements of defence, and this case seems to have found its way into the hearing list shortly after that date, and to have come before the learned Assistant Registrar on the fixing day of that month. I am told by Mr. Seenivasagam that the solicitors for the Plaintiff, and for the first, second, fourth and fifth Defendants were all present on that fixing day; and though Mr. Farr tells me that he protested to the learned Assistant Registrar that the Plaintiff was not ready to go to trial, it is not disputed that the case was then and there fixed for hearing on 30 of this month (November, 1937) and on 1,2 and 9 of next month (December, 1937).

I am further informed by Mr. Seenivasagam that on 20 August last he wrote to Mr. Farr as follows:

Dear Sir,

Civil Suit No. 39/37.

LOOI GUAN KWAY v. LOW LEAN BOK and ORS.

This case is fixed for hearing on 30 November and the following days.

If it is desired by you to amend the plaint, will you please make your application to Court early, as any application, unless promptly made, will be very strongly objected to by me, and under no circumstances will I consent to any application for postponement.

Mr. Seenivasagam complains that he has received no acknowledgment of or reply to this letter, and as Mr. Farr allowed both letter and complaint to pass without contradiction, I must assume that he received this letter although he did not answer it. I must also assume, I think, that he