IN SUMMARy JurisdicTION.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
at 11-45 and when" she dropped her anchor. Plaintiffs were practically trying to make de- fendants insurers of the safety of their cable.
7
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE). In conclusion, Mr. Pollock said there was no case of negligence to go to a jury and judg- ment should therefore be given for defendants without calling a witness for the defence.
BREAKING A SUBMARINE CABLE.
The hearing was resumed of the action in which the China and Japan Electric and Telephone Co., Ld., claimed $1,000 from the China and Manila Steamship (o., Ld., being the amount of damage sustained by the plaintiff company by the breaking of their submarine cable in the harbour by the defendants' stem. ship Rubi,
Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C, instructed by Mr. H. G. C. Bailey (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes and Master), appeared for the plaintiff company, and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C, instructed by Mr. F. B. Deacon (of Messrs. Deacon Looker and Deacon), represented the defendant company.
The witnesses called yesterday were Mr. W. L. Carter, manager of the plaintiff company, who gave evidence of the damago and that the amount paid for repair was considerably more than the amount claimed; Mr. F. G. Figg of the Observatory, who spoke of the weather at the time of the occurrence; Mr. A. Webb, engineer in the employ of Messrs. M. Donald and Co., who declared he would only raise anchor in a typhoon, with half his boilers not working, auder protest; and Captain Christie, who did not consider the Rubi should have gone to her buoy in the condition that she was, but that she should have called a tug and proceeded to a safe anchorage.
Mr. Pollock, addressing his Lordship. said that there was no evidence of negligence to be submitted to the jury, because in the first place there was no doubt the Rubi had dropped her anchor somewhere off North Point on August 30th at 12.30. What was substantially alleged was that she dropped her anchor on plaintiffs' cable. Assuming that she dropped ber auchor inside the cable area and that as a result she broke the Company's cable, the mere fact of dropping her anchor there could not be said to be negligence. As his Lordship knew, the mere, fact that damage was done either by a ship or by a horse that ran away or by aughing moving which belonged to defendants did not entitle the plaintiffs to recover, and he thought plaintiffs' legal adviser had not taken the proper view when they had put in their claim the allegation of negligence. They submitted that there was no evidence of such uglect. They knew from the evidence that there certainly were gusts of wind at 12 30 on August 30th, accompanied by rain. It was true plaintiffs' witnesses were not disposed to admit there was as much density of rain as mentioned in the defendants' state- ment. Still they knew there were that morning overcast skies, with raiu and squalls of wind. The question to be submitted to the jury was whether having regard to the circumstances the Rubi was negligent in dropping her anchor where she did. The plaintiffs' suggestion of what they ought to have done took them back to the afternoon of the 29th. They suggested that defendants ought to have been towed to a place of safety on that afternoon. Another allega- was that they ought to have been towed away or steamed away by daylight next morning. All this vista of possibilities was laid before them by the plaintiffs. In considering that, one was forcibly reminded of the observation which was made in the case of a horse bolting and doing damage at home. The learned judge said in the course of his judgment "Of course if you are going to take us back and back, if the horse and carriage had not left the mews, the accident would not have occurred at all.”
tion
His LORDSHIP-Well, the horse went off on its own action. A steamboat could not do that.
Mr. P LLOCK, continuing, said they might argue that if the cable had not been there it would not have been damaged by the anchor, and if the Rube had not been in Hongkong, had she been in Manila, there would not have been any damage done. He submitted that a line must be drawn somewhere. Defendants would never be able to escape from the charge of negligence if bis friend's arguments were upholden. He submitted that the whole question the jury had to consider was What took place between leaving the buoy
His LORDSHIP did not agree with this view and said the jury having heard one side should
hear the other.
T
Mr. Pollock then a idressed the jury, indicat ing the case for the defendants. He stated there was no neglect on the part of the captain of the Rubi in weighing anchor in the cir cumstances. A curious suggestion had been made by a very positive witness the previous day, Mr. Webb, that a ship like the Rubi with only one of her two boilers going must be treated as partially disabled. That was most remarkable évidence, but he would be able to call evidence that the Rubi herself had actually gone all the way to Manila with one boiler and that an old vessel, the Perla, had gone both ways with one boiler. He would also be able to show the jury that considerable pressure could be kept up with only one boiler. Of course the could not go as fast with one boiler as with two, but when there was only one boiler in use a donkey engine was employed to do auxiliary work, and he would be able to show that in smooth water the difference between one boiler and two was only a few knots, something between 124 kuots and 10. Mr. Webb's argument that a ship like the Rubi nader one boiler not being able to go more than half ber ordinary speed was absurd. The Rubi herself goin to Manila with one boiler in use had maintained an average speed of nine knots, while the Perls in similar circumstances had only dropped about two knots on her speed. It was absurd to say that one boiler would not give more than half speed. Knowing how horse-power was applied to steamers, they knew that if it was desired to increase a vessel's speed a knot or two above her economical speed her horse-power had to be increased enormously to get the extra knot or two. So with one boiler, as opposed to two, in smooth water and under favourable conditions the difference in a steamer's speed would only be one or two knots. Proceeding, be asked the jury to remember that the typhoon did not reach typhoon force. Captain Morrison in his evidence said he did not think much about it because he pulled up anchor and steamed away that evening. They must know from their own knowledge that the cry of wolf was raised in the colony when there was no wolf. Signals were hoisted, uumerous notices issued, but nothing happened. The typhoon had been somewhere no doubt, but there had been many false alarms. It was suggested that they ought to have gone to Kowloon Bay or somewhere else before they did, but he would call evidence to show that other two steamers did not leave till after they did. When the Rubi set out for Kowloon Bay she experienced squalls and blinding rain which made it impossible to see 100 yards ahead In these circumstances the Captain thought it prudent to drop anchor. Plaintiffs asked them to say that that was imprudent and that the Captain was negligent. In fact the plaintiffs almost seemed to think that the Captain ought to have thought far more of prospective damage to the cable than to rok after his ship and avoid drifting or running into other ships. They seemed to think that their cable was far more important than reasonable and prudent navigation, dud he thought the jury would, agree with him that it was reasonable and prudent navigation to drop his anchor as he did wherever he was, even inside the area, ha ing regard to the blinding rain. So far as the captain was concerned, he had been all along under the impression that he had dropped his anchor outside the cable area Even if the jury came to the conclusion that the captain had dropped his anchor there, he thought from the evidence they would come to the conclusion that it was certainly not due to negligence on his part.
Evidence was then called for the defence. Captain Notley, of the Rubi, bore out the statement of counsel. Referring to the pulling up of the anchor on the occasion in question, he said something came up with the anchor which was handed to him by the chief officer.
(January 8, 1906. He had sailed several ships when they had only
one boiler in use.
Cross-examined-When anchored at the dook buoy he was not aware that any iotices of a typhoon had been issued by the Observatory, on the 29th he knew the barometer was falling but did not notice it before. Apart from having seen the signal up it had not occurred to his mind that there was a typhoon about. When he saw the signal hoisted he did not take any steps to inquire whether the Observatory had issued any notices. If he had known that
a notice had been issued that a typhoon threatened to approach South China within 24 hours, he would still have gone to his buoy; he had not been told by Mr. Goddard or Mr. Gordon that that was the first great mis- take he had made. It was the duly of the captain of a saip to take his vessel to a safe anchorage in case of a storm. If he neglected to do that, and the storm reached its height, he would be responsible for any damage done. When he got to the buoy the black drum was hoisted instead of the red, which indicated that a typhoon was coming; at that time his ship's boilers were empty, and he could not have got steam up for some time. It was quite possible to lie out the typhoon at his buoy, but he did not intend, doing so. He did Lot consider it would have been more prudent, in view of all the warnings to have sent for a tag to assist him to get away. The squall which occurred at 12.30 on the day in question was one of the things that could not be auticipated. When at Kellett Island he considered more of these squalls wore likely; a second squall struck his vessel before he knew it. It was of a very blinding character, and he was heading towards the P. and 'O. in Kowloon Bay when it struck him. Assuming the anchor, with 105 fathoms of chain out, to be in the centre of the telephone area, that would put his ship just without the area. During the time he was anchored near the area his anchors did not drag; he knew this because the ship was sheering. Witness was certain he was anchored outside the area. The letter to the Eastern Extension Cable Co. (put in) was written by him.
He stated therein that while taking his vessel to x safe anchorage on the previous afternoon he was forced, through stress of weather, to auchor just off the cable ground. He kept steaming up all night on his anchors in case he ran foul of the cables. Next morning, when he began to heave up the anchors, be fonud that he had broken the cable. He thought he had taken anchor bearings just beyond the cable grounds, but during the foul weather his bearings were not reliable.
Witness did not at any time think they were in the cable ground.
About
W. G. Lawson said in August last he was acting as Chief Officer on the 8.8. Rubi. He had been six and a half years on the China coast, and had had a master's certificate for twelve years. About 1150 on the morning of the 30th August the Rubi left her buoy at Hunghom, and proceeded towards Kowloon Bay. On the way they struck a severe squall, and dropped the port anchor for a few minutes. When the squall cleared away they hove up, the engines were put ahead, and the Bubi proceeded. Then a second squall came up with very thick rain, which was coming down 80 severe that wituess could not face it. ten minutes after it came on the captain ordered him to let go the anchors, which he did. The ship was shearing all the time, and the engines were being kept worked slowly ahead to keep the strain off the cables. The ship did not drag at all. Witness hove short on both anchors, and then took up the starboard. Afterwards he hove up the port anchor, and found a piece of cable on it. At the time of the second squall, witness could not see ten feet ahead. Dropping the anchors in such a case was a prudent thing to do, as otherwise they might have drifted down on a steamer which was lying on their starboard quarter. Witness was previously in the Eubi when she had only one boiler and went from Hongkong to Manila at a speed of ten knots
an hour.
Cross-examined-He could not explain how it was that the typhoon signal hoisted at 7.30 a.m. was not seen for two hours. "hey were al busy on the decks at the time The telephone cable was not pulling at their anchor. It was not true that their anchor was pulled
Page 10Page 11