1
May 2, 1904.]
IN SUMMARy JurisdictION, BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH (PUISNE JUDGE).
AN AUSTRALIAN CONTRACT.
Wan Koon Kwai sued Chun Soong for the equivalent of 8567.50.
:
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
CLAIM FOR COSTS IN THE R. A. COLLINS BANKRUPTCY CABE.
Mr. H. W. Looker, of Messrs, Deacon, Looker and Deacon, solicitors, said he had filed an ap- plication on behalf of the judgment creditor in of the estate in priority as that which was given the R. A. Collins bankruptcy, claiming costs Mr. F. X. d'Almada e Castro, solicitor, the Ordinance, Mr. Looker argued that the to the costs of a petitioning creditor. Quoting appeared for the plaintiff. He stated in open-principle of the law was that where a creditor ing the case that some time in June or July had at his own expense and on his own account Last both parties were resident in Geraldton. taken proceedings and incurred costs which had North Queensland. Defendant asked plaintiff resulted in the property being preserved for the if he would like to invest money in a share in a certain firm in Hongkong, the share to cost right and fair that the costs he had taken benefit of the general creditors, it was only £50. Plaintiff consented and handed over the money which was duly despatched to Hongkong. paid in priority to the other debts of the upon him to preserve that property should be the agreement being that he should get creditors. because through the institution of a share certificate or book or else that the money bo returned.
these proceedings all the creditors got the In November fendant left Geraldton and came to Hongkong. had got judgment against the debtor, but had de benefit of the property so preserved. His client A few months afterwards plaintiff also came over to Hongkong and asked defendant for his peal that he had intimated he was about to make; stayed execution to give him time to lodge an ap- share scrip. Defendant replied that he had not got it. Plaintiff then asked for his mones backs and got a receiving order upon depositing but instead of (loing this he went behind their back, and defendant told him the money was all lost as the firm into which it had been put which the bankrupt was to pay off all his $500. There was a scheme of composition under had smashed. He now sued for its recovery.
His Lordship after hearing evidence gave
debts at the rate of $50 a month which judgment for the plaintiff with costs.
would take about two years. If that was duly carried out, and if the debts were paid it was to the benefit of the creditors, and that benefit was the result of the proceedings his client took.
Wednesday, 27th April.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR T. SERCOMBE SMITH
(PUISNE JUDGE).
A WASHERMAN'S CLAIM, The Chow Kee firm of washermen, 13. Jar- dine's Bazaar, sued B. H. Macke, Hotel America: for $47.66 in respect of washing 2.383 pieces of clothes, between 2nd and 23rd February last, for the defendant. Mr. D. V. Steavenson, of Messrs. Deacon; Looker and Deacon, solicitors. appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. P. W. Gold- ring, of Mr. J. Hastings, solicitor. for. the defendant. The defence was that the bill was for the washing for the hotel, of which defendant was not the proprietor, but was only a resident there.
His Lordship after hearing evidence gave judgment for the defendant with costs.
Thursday, 28th April.
IN BANKRUPTCY,
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
AN IMPRISONED BANKRUPT,
Mr. John Hays, of Messrs. Johnson. Stokes and Master, solicitors, appeared in support of an application for the release from prison of Lau Yuk Lam, whom his Lordship had sent to prison on the 21st inst. for contempt of Court in failing to file a statement of his affairs within the required time after he had been adjudged bankrupt. Mr. Hays said he was informed by the Official Receiver that a statement of affairs had now been filed. Security in the sum of $500 would if required be forthcoming from the debtor's brother.
were дож
His Lordship was of opinion that the case did not fall within the terms of the Ordinance which dealt with this matter. The object of the Ordinance was very clear. If a man brought an action and issued execution and seized a quantity of goods of the debtor which otherwise the debtor might have done away with, and by means of taking these things he had secured them, and then the bank. ruptcy ensued and these goods available for division among the creditors. it
was only right and proper that the goods in that way should have the costs of his active creditor who had preserved these
amount of the estate. In his opinion in this action in priority because he had added to the case nothing of the kind had been done. With plaintiff in that action at all; he required it to regard to the $500 it was not preserved by the be deposited because he was not satisfied that there were not any assets. He did not think Mr.
Looker's application came within the letter or the spirit of the Ordinance, and therefore he must decline to grant it.
COMPOSITION APPROVED,
In the same case, Mr. O. D. Thompson. solicitor, applied for his Lordship's approval of a proposal by the bankrupt, R. A. Collins, to The scheme had been accepted by a majority pay $50 a month until all the debts were paid.
quarters of the amount of the debtor's liabilities. of the creditors representing more than three-
His Lordship granted the petition. Addressing Mr. Bruce Shepherd, the Official, Receiver,
not approve of Mr. Looker's application?
His Lordship said-I gather that you did
Mr. Bruce Shepherd-No. your Lordship. He wanted to argue the principle although the act of issuing execution had not been done.
The Court adjourned.
His Lordship remarked that it was very singular that as soon as this man was sent to prison he could give a statement of his affairs, | THE · which he could not give when he was a free man. Mr. Hays said that of course the application for the release of the debtor was not in his inter- ests at all as he represented the petitioning creditor, but he had no objection at all to his release on security being given.
45
BALLAARAT”-“CHANGON"
COLLISION.
ARBITRATOR'S JUDGMENT. The following is Sir Hiram S. Wilkinson's between the owners of the P. & O. S. Ballaarat judgment in the matter of the arbitration and the owners of the s.s. Changon
In this case I find both vessels to blame, First, with regard to the case against the Ballaarat. It is alleged on behalf of the Chan-
His Lordship referring to the affidavit which had been filed said it was there stated that the debtor's brother had deposited $500 as security for his appearance in these proceedings and he had also agreed to enter into a bond in the fur- ther sum of $500 for the bankrupt's due appear-gon that the Ballaarat, among other faults, ance whenever required. Well of course he had committed the man for contempt of Court only a week ago. He did not wish to keep him an unnecessary length of time in prison, but to mark his sense of the impropriety of the debtor's conduct he would allow him to come out of prison on the 4th prox. on condition that the sum of $500 was duly deposited and the bond made before that date.
failed to comply with the rules relating to the navigation of the Woosung Inner and Outer Bars which are laid down in Harbour Notifica- tion No. 1 of 1904, and which require a vessel proceeding against the tide to hold back to allow a vessel proceeding with the tide to pass. It was contended on behalf of the Changon that the Ballarat ought to have seen the Chang- on over the land in time to hold back before
841
coming to the Gas Buoy, But the Assessors; times and positions of the two vessels, advise having at my request worked out the respective
have seen the Changon in time to hold back me that the Ballaarat could not be expected to
that she could not with safety hold back until before beginning to cross the bar, and that after
arrived at the conclusion that if a better look the Gas Buoy had been passed. But I have out had been kept on the Ballsarat the Chan- the Ballaarat before she was seen, and those on gon would have been seen from the bridge of board the Ballaarat would have been more ready to meet the emergency which arose; but even
I concur in and adopt their opinion, that after she was seen, the Assessors are of opinion, and if the Changon could not have been seen before
she was seen there was time for the Ballarat to
anchored as soon as she had got past the Gas take measures to prevent the collision. The Assessors consider that the Ballaarat could have
circumstance to have anchored, when it was Buoy, and those on board of her ought in the
the tide. If they had done so, there would have found that her head was being carried up by
the collision, and she would have been in a been time then for the Changon to have avoided . better position to do so than that in which she was placed by the Ballaarst keeping on.
the impropriety of the sounding of two short Counsel for the Changon also urged strongly blasts on the Ballaarat while she was still under a hard a-port helm in an endeavour to get that this was a most improper signal to give her head round to starboard. I am of opinion under those conditions. It is said that this did not mislead the master of the Changon, and this is to a certain extent correct. knew that the
Ballaarat was not going
He
•
choice. But the signal led him to do what it to the starboard side of the channel by was intended to lead him to do, and what other- continuing to go over, or keep over, to the wise he would not have done. Instead of starboard side of the channel, he made an effort to his helm to be put hard a-starboard, his star- go over to the port side. He gave orders for
although he almost immediately afterwards board engine to be put full speed astern, and, reversed those orders, yet time was lost, and I am advised that but for the delay which those orders occasioned he would probably have got out of the Ballaarat's way. The Master of the Changon was asked why he did not give the orders intended to turn his head to port and to go over to port, a chance, and he said: "I did not think I ought to run the risk. It is true I was on the starboard side of the Ballaarst, but I was on the starboad side of the fairway, and I did not know when the Ballaarat's bow-was going to swing round into the fairway." If he I agree with what was urged by Counsel for had given the orders a chance as suggested
probably in the circumstances would have failed the Changon that he might have failed-and -to get out of the way, and in that case a more serious catastrophe might have occurred.
much The signal intended to mean that the ship's head was being directed to port ought not to have been given when every effort was being made to direct her head to starboard, simply because those efforts were for the moment unavailing. As a fact the ship was not under command, and if any signal was to be given it Was a signal which would have been a proper signal to indicate that she was not under command. The signal prescribed by the Regulations is that laid down in Article 4 (a), namely, two black balls or shapes each 2 feet in diameter carried in a vertical line one over the be best seen. other not less than 6 feet apart where they can
But if such signal is not ready, I am This is the signal for vessels in the day time when they ban be seen. informed by one of the Assessors with frequently used, and which it would appear local knowledge that there is a signal very
where, that is a continuous succession of from reported cases is sometimes, used else. short blasts on the whistle. How far that would in all circumstances be held to be and consider. It would, however, I ain advised. a proper signal, it is not necessary to stop be understood by those on board all local steamers, and the fact of giving such a signal would have brought home to those on board the Ballarat the necessity of taking precautions, such as anchoring, a precaution which, as I have
1
7