October 16, 1895.]
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT:
His Lordship-The rule is to stop if necessary. If it was necessary to stop and you did not do so you are to blame whether you are bound by the regulations or not.
Mr. Francis-I do not deny that, my Lord. We are bound by the ordinary rules of good
[
His Lordship-You would not dispute the rule on good seamanship that if the plaintiff junk had a light you were bound to keep out of her way?
Mr. Francis-No, I do not think there will be any dispute about that.
in opposition to the direct orders of the Chinese Imperial edict lately published even in Hok. chiong. We have long known that Imperial decrees had little respect shown them by local mandarins, but rarely have we had such an example of open and gross disregard by a Chinese official for commands of his Emperor. The Imseamanship. perial decree in favour of protection to Chris- tians as true Chinese subjects was hanging before this official's eyes when he uttered these words and illegally beat this Christian. It is very much to be feared that the conduct of this magistrate is the prelude to a general persecu- tion of Christians in Hok-chiong. The high authorities have been appealed to, but they, as usual, pay no attention to appeals, or warnings. They were appealed to and warned again and again in the Kucheng troubles when first those troubles broke out, but they turned a deaf ear and did nothing. We all know the terrible result. We can come to no other conclusion but that these authorities fully sympathize with these riots against Chris- tians and these horrible massacres of foreign missionaries.-Foochme Echo.
THE “BELGIC" FLOATED.
Mr. Van Buren, the Agent of the O. & 0. Company, informs us that he has received a telegram from Yokohama that the Belgic has been safely floated and has arrived at Yokosuka.
COLONIAL COURT OF
ADMIRALTY. ·
10th October.
BEFORE SIR FIELDING CLARKE (CHIEF JUSTICE) AND HON. W. C. H. HASTINGS (ASSESSOR).
KWOK SHING FAT V. THE STEAMSHİP
"" CHOYSANG.
The plaintiff brought an action to recover $2,441 from the defendant ship. & British ship registered in London, and belonging to the Indo-China Steam Navigation Company. The action arose out of a collision on the high seas been the two boats.
Mr. Pollock (instructed by Mr. Mounsey) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. J. Francis, Q.C. (instructed by Mr. Hastings, of Mr. V. H. Deacon's office), represented the defendant.
Mr. Pollock said the plaintiff was the owner and master of the Chinese junk Shing Fut, and the collision took place on the high seas off the coast of China between Swatow and Hongkong at 3 a.m. on the 18th September last. The steamship Choysang was on her way from Swatow to Hongkong, and the junk was coming out from the coast on a southerly course on a fishing ex pedition and was in the company of the junk Kai Chung, which was taking the lead. The plain- tiff's story was that at the time named he saw almost at right angles to them on the port beam a white light high up in the air. Very shortly afterwards the steamer was seen and almost immediately the Choysang ran into plaintiff's junk a little aport of the main mast and almost at right angles with the side of the junk. From the preliminary acts his Lordship would see that there was a discrepancy as to whether the junk was carrying a light. Plaintiff alleged that he had a light on a pole on the raised stern of the junk, and the defendants alleged there was no light. There was also a discrepancy as to the exact state of the weather. Plaintiff, in his preliminary act, thus described the weather "It was cloudy overhead, but clear on the water." The defendant Company said "it was very dark, overcast, and cloudy," and said no. thing about the water. It was quite clear that the defendant ship was bound by the statutory regulations for preventing collisions at sea.
His Lordship The defendant does not dis. pute that, I suppose.
.
Mr. Francis said he thought it was clear that if the junk was not bound by the regulations the British steamship was also not bound by them. The Chinese Government had not adopted the rules and regulations, and junks were not bound by them, but by the general rules of the sea.
In reply to a further question by his Lord. ship Mr. Francis said it had been laid down years ago that a vessel steaming under the rules and regulations was not bound by them when meeting another vessel not recoginsing those rules and regulations.
Mr. Pollock-My submission is that the plaintiff's junk was not bound to carry any light; there is no regulation which compels him to carry a light on a junk. But after hearing the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses I think your Lordship will have no doubt that there was a light on the junk.
His Lordship You would not say that a junk was entirely free from blame if it did not carry 8. light?
Mr. Pollock-Yes, my Lord. I have several cases on the point, and I may perhaps quote them now.
His Lordship No; let us hear the evidence first.
Plaintiff was then called and said that, he carried a light on a pole six feet long, and it was placed on the stern, which was sixteen feet high. He did not change his course when he saw the light of the steamer. Four of his fokis were drowned through the collision. There were thirteen people on board altogether, and those who were saved boarded the Choy sang as the junk was abandoned.
Cross-examined-On arriving in Hongkong witness went with the compradore of the steamer to Messrs. Jardine, Matheson's hong. It was quite true that he then claimed only $1,700 damages-$1,200 the value of the junk and 8500 the value of the contents.
After other witnesses had corroborated the the statement of plantiff's counsel, Mr. Francis called his evidence,
Mr. Francis thereupon consulted with clients and afterwards announced that they could not agree to letting the case remain as it was
His Lordship may say at once that it is pretty clear that the junk carried no light. I am quite satisfied on that point; also that there was not a proper look-out on the junk-no look-out whatever.
Mr. Francis I do not think I need address your Lordship on the question.
His Lordship-There is not much law in volved, is there? It very much a question of fact.
Mr. Francis-There is not much law involved, my Lord.
Mr. Pollock-I am quite willing, my Lord, if my friend says he is not going to address your Lordship on the question of law, not to trouble your Lordship at all.
His Lordship-Mr. Francis, you have got to look at these facts:-The steamer was going ten knots an hour; there were a number of junks; the night was clear, and probably you did not see this junk until she was under your bows. On the other hand Mr. Pollock has got to get over the fact that he had no light at all. Is not that pretty much the position?
Mr. Francis-I think it is, my Lord. His Lordship-I do not know whether you want to argue to make speeches-but I know what the result will be, although I shall be glad- to hear you. That is all I can say.
Mr. Francis I am acting under my structions, my Lord.
On the rising of the Court the counsel bad consultation, and came to an agreement, which was consented to by his Lordship, who was seen in chambers. On this agreement his Lordship found that both parties were to blame, and made no order as to costs. Counsel on both sides consented to the damages being fixed at $1,600, and, under the Admiralty rules, the defendant was adjudged to pay $800 of this sum to the plaintiff.
SUPREME COURT.
9th October.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
JUDGE),
VAN EPPS v. GORNELL.
William Edgar Van Epps, general commis sion agent, 47, Queen's Road Central, brought an action against Christopher Gornell, quarter- master sergeant, Commissariat Buildings, to recover $300 amount due upon a joint and several promissory note signed by the defendant and H. Patey, and of which plaintiff is the holder. Mr. Dennys appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant was represented by Mr. Robinson.
William Whittall, second officer of the Choy | BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (ACTING PUISNE sang, said on the morning of the collision the sky was overcast and gloomy; the night was dark but clear. When he first saw the junk it was between 200 and 300 feet away on the starboard side. There was no light whatever on the junk. He saw it was impossible to avoid a collision, and so he put the helm hard astarboard, in order that those on the junk might put about if they saw the steamer, or that the junk should strike the steamer instead of the steamer striking the junk. The people on the junk did not give any signal. After the collision witness put off in a boat in company with two China- and they picked up six men, three children, and one
women from the junk. There was nothing in the junk but a few fishing nets and some crockery.
men,
The case had not concluded when the Court
and was adjourned.
rose
11th October.
William Whitall, the second officer, resumed his evidence. In cross-examination witness said that in addition to himself there was a Chinese quartermaster on the bridge at the helm, and a young man named Ainsworth, who was working his passage down, was on the forecastle looking
out.
Captain Tamplin spoke to being called by the last witness and to giving directions about the searching of the junk, etc. There was no light on the junk. Efforts were made to tow it, but they were abandoned at daylight.
Several additional witnesses were called, and the case for the defendant closed.
Mr. Francis said he had a slight touch of fever, and he asked his Lordship to adjourn until to-day.
!
His Lordship-Under those circumstances I must. I do not know whether you think there is a resonable doubt about this case. You both have difficulties to get over.
C
For
Mr. Dennys said the note sued upon was given to Emily Minhinnett and was as follows:
Hongkong, September 22nd, 1893. value received we conjointly and severally promise to pay to Emily Minhinnett the sum of $300 by monthly instalments of $20 per month." The note was signed by Gornell and H Patey. The note passed into the hands of Van Eps, but while in the payed's possession the following addition was made
"The first instalment to be paid on 22nd November, 1893, till the whole is paid if full." This alteration was made with the con sent of the parties, and Mr. Dennys relied upon the 6th section of Ordinance 9 of 1885 in sup- port of his case. The section is" Where a bill or acceptance is materially altered without the assent of all parties liable on the bill, the bill is avoided except as against a party who has himself made, authorised, or assented to the alteration, and subsequent indorsers. Provided that where a bill has been materially altered, but the alteration was not apparent, and the bill is in the hands of a holder in due course, such holder may avail himself of the bill as if it had not been altered, and may enforce payment of it according to its original tenour.___ The defendant had, amongst other things, set the defence that he did not assent to the tion, that it was a material alteration, it was apparent. But he (Mr Dennys) that the alteration was not material and