L
June 13, 1904.]
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 6th June.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE) AND CAPTAIN BASIL TAYLOR (MARINE ASSESSOR).
A COLLISION CASE.
The Tak Hing firm sued Lo Cheuk and Chau Shan for $5,000, being damages sustained by the plaintiffs by reason of the negligent naviga- tion by the defendants' launches Cheong ee and Kwong Loi respectively belonging to them. whereby the plaintiff's cargo-boat No. 381 was sunk in Hongkong Harbour on 21st October last. Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister-at-law (in-
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
437
to make a proposal and the creditors to accept it, was to call a meeting of creditors.
The Official Receiver (Mr. Bruce Shepherd) mentioned that Bir Fielding Clarke had on one occasion refused to make an order in a similar case, because he did not know who might be damaged.
His Lordship-What do you say, Mr. Goldring?
Mr. Goldring-I am more or less a passive spectator. I may mention that another of my clients. another partner in the debtor firm, has committed suicide in Canton.
His Lordship-Well, I do not see that that has anything to do with the law, though it may be bad for him.
After some further discussion.
tion as he could find no authority for granting His Lordship said he must decline the applica-
uch an application. The matter must be gone about in the ordinary course, and the debtors proposal submitted to a meeting of creditors.
COSTS.
and the bow-somewhat to the east of the bow of the Stanley. One launch, the Cheong Lee, was going from Yaumati to the Pak On pier. and the other launch. the Krong Loi, which had the cargo-boat lashed to it. was go ing out on a course which was very clearly shown by looking at the relative position of the Stanley and the pier. She was going past the bows of the Stanley; the tide and wind were coming from the East, and all she wanted to do was to round the Stanley. The two boats were going along a course by which one would have to cross the other, and it was quite clear that the Kwony Loi had the Chrong Lee on her starboard side. That being so it was the duty of the Kwong Li, under article 19. to have kept out of the way of the Cheong Lee. if she could do so. Now, it was quite clear that structed by Mr. H. W. Looker. of Messrs, the Cheong Lee kept on her course, barring, of Deacon, Looker and Deacon. solicitors) appeared course, any little deviation caused by junks, for the plaintiffs; Hon. H. E. Pollock, K.C..
cargo-boats, etc.. as it was obvious that in a barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. 0. D.
crowded harbour these would he necessary. Thomson, solicitor), for the Kicong Loi; and
until immediately before the collision Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C.. barrister-at-law (in- occurred, when she starboarded her helm to structed by Mr. F. Paget Hett, solicitor, of Mr.
come round to avoid. as far as possible, the G. K. Hall Brutton's office), for the Cheong Lee.
full effect of the collision. There was nothing The plaintiffs, in their statement of claim
to prevent the Kwong Li from doing her stated that on 21st October they engaged the
duty. that steam launch Amna Loi to tow a cargo-boat under the stern of the Cheong Ler. All she had was to port her helm and go
His Lordship granted the application, stating laden with flour and general merchandise worth
to do was to have ported her helm, which would that he had come to the conclusion that the $10.462 from the Tung Yik pier to the
not have taken her at all out of her course, but property of the debtors in respect of whose steamship dupeh lying in the harbour,
would have taken her under the stern of the estate the receiving order was made had been At 6 p.m on the evaning of the 21st
Cheong Lee, as she should have gone. The preserved for the benefit of the creditors by October he Kwong Loi left the pier carry-coxswain of the Kwong Loi said that if the means of the legal proceedings brought by the ing the cargo-boat in tow. Shortly after
applicants. Mr. Bruce Shepherd had very she left the wharf, and before she reached the
properly cut down some of the costs. He north fairway. the Cheong Lee. coming from
understood the assets were quite substantial Yaumati, collided with the cargo-boat and sunk
and would pay over 50 per cent.? her. The collision was partly caused by the negligence of those on board the Kwong Loi in not keeping out of the way of the Cheong Live and partly by the negligence of those on board the Cheong Lee in navigating her at too great a speed, in not changing her course or reversing her engines, or not doing so in sufficient time to avert a collision.
running ahead of the Stanley to bother herself to take proper precautions to avoid the other boat. She caused the collision and she was to blame.
1
¡
In the case of the bankruptcy of the Chi Loong firm, ex parte the Goo Tek Sang. Mr. Goldring appeared in support of an application by the petitioning creditors for payment of costs under Section 2 of Ordinance 24 of 1895.
The Official Receiver-Yes, my Lord. His Lordship granted the application.
The Debtor replied that it was he who gave evidence. The defendant on that occasion was Paul Rosche, who was manager of his cigar factory.
Cheong Lee had not caught him they would have crossed over the Cheong Lee's bows, as they were trying to do. It was quite clear that he caused the collision. It seemed to him that the whole occurrence was clearly accounted for by the Kwong Loi neglecting to port, which she might have done with the greatest of ease, and gone
F. NOLTE'S BANKRUPTCY. under the stern of the other ship. It was alleg. Frederick Nolte, late of the Hotel America, ed that there was a cargo-boat in the way of the Wyndham Street, applied for a receiving order Kong Loi. thus preventing her from porting and to be declared bankrupt. He was represent- her helm. On the evidenc His Lordship founded by Mr. F. Paget Hett. solicitor, of Mr. that that was not so. The cause of the collision G. K. Hall Brutton's office. The first defendant. Lo Cheuk, owner of the
was quite clear and plain. The Kwong Lai, with His Lordship asked if the debtor was the same Cheong Lee, stated in defence that the regulate cargo boat lashed to her, was too intent on man that gave evidence some time ago before tion lights were duly exhibited and burning
him in an embezzlement case? properly and a good look-out was kept on board· the launch. The night was dark but clear. Both wind and tide were setting in a westerly direction. When approaching the central fair- way she went half-speed. The Keong Loi when about 300 or 400 yards away from the Cheong Le starboarded, the Awrong Loi's green light coming into view on the Cheong Lee's port bow, and the Awong Loi proceeded on a course about north by east, crossing the course of the Cheong Lee from port to starboard. The Cheong Lee thereupon blew a long warning blast on her whistle and continued on her course at half-speed. When the ressels approached near together the Kwong Loi sud- denly starboarded and turned across the bow of the Cheong Lee. Those on board the Chong Lee (perceiving that otherwise a collision was inevitable) immediately put her helm hard a-starboard and blew two short blasts on her whistle, and reversed her engines. Nevertheless the starboard quarter of the cargo- boat struck the Cheong Lee's starboard bow,
i
The second defendant. Chau Shau, stated in his defence that neither the Kwong Loi nor the cargo-boat gave any signal indicating their change of course to port, and the collision was not caused or contributed to by any improper conduct on the part of those employed by the defendant or by their improper conduct of the plaintiff boat. The Awong Loi neglected to take proper measures to keep out of the way of the Cheong Lee, and the Kwong Loi improperly turned to port just before the collision. The Kwong Loi attempted to cross ahead of the Cheong Lee, and the 'wong Loij neglected to slacken speed or to stop or to re- verse. The Kwong Loi was navigated in a reckless and improper manner and in contraven- tion of rules Ño. 19. 22. 25 and 29 of the
Regulations for preventing Collisions at Sea.
Further evidence was taken.
Wednesday, 8th June.
His LORDSHIP said that he would not reserve judgment because it seemed to him to be a very
A verdict for the plaintiffs was delivered. with a rider attached to the affect that the Cheonf Lee was not to blame. but that the Kwong Loi was liable for damages to the plaintiffs. The cost of the action to the plaintiffs and to the other side to be borne by the Kwong Loi. The question of the amount of damages was referred to the Registrar.
Mr. Sharp asked for leave to apply to the Court for his costs in the event of the other side refusing to pay them, and this was granted.
Thursday, 9th June.
IN BANKRUPTCY.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE.)
APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW A PETITION REFUSED.
In the case in which an interim petition for
His Lordship remarked that they did not appear to be very successful; one man charged with embezzlement and another in bankruptcy.
Mr. Hett stated that the petition was made in consequence of a resolution come to by the creditors, and it was quite probable that an
arrangement would be arrived at.
His Lordship asked how the hotel did not pay it ought to do a roaring good business.
The Debtor deposed that he had lost money in the cigar factory. He had been connected with the Manila and Hongkong Cigar Manu- facturing Co., but was separated from it now. He sold the hotel for $16,000 last month. Out of that sum he had paid $5,000 on 'a bill of sale, $3,000 on a promissory note, and other items.
His Lordship granted an order:
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
(PUISNE JUDGE).
a receiving order had been granted on the BEFORE His Honour T. SERCOMBE SMITH application of the Sui Kat Bank on the estate of the Tung Chan firm. Mr. J. Scott Harston, of Messrs. Ewens and Harston, solicitors. applied to have the petition withdrawn and the interim order discharged. Mr. P. W. Gold- ring, solicitor, of Mr. John Hastings's office, represented the debtors.
Mr. Harston stated that two affidavits had been filed-one by the managing partner of the petitioning firm and the other by the manager of the debtor firm. There would be about 66 per cent, paid on the debts.
His Lordship asked Mr. Harston if he could quote any case in which leave had been given to withdraw a petition after an interim receiving order had been granted.
Mr. Haraton replied that he had looked, bu was not able to find such a case.
t
His Lordship said it was very seldom that an application was made, after an interim receiving clear case.
There was no doubt that the col-order had been made, to withdraw the petition. lision occurred somewhere between the shore The usual course, if the debtors were prepared
ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT. Joseph Heureux, London, sued Paul Lemaire & Co., Hongkong, for $333 damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of a breach by the defendants of a contract made on 25th Septem- ber, 1903, for the purchase of 1,000 cases of tin plates. Mr. E. J. Grist, of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, solicitors, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. G. K. Hall Brutton, solicitor, for the defendants.
Mr. Grist stated that defendants telegraphed to plaintiff asking for these tin plates, and in reply he telegraphed stating the price. Subsequently defendants telegraphed to cancel all orders. Plaintiff wired back declining to cancel the order, whereupon he replied, “Cancel all orders; are now in liquidation. When the tin plates were re-sold they realised only £600, whereas the price fixed upon between the parties was
: