396
made to the original charter. There were no exceptions as perils of the sea in the re-charter.
Mr. Pollock-Yes, there are.
Sir Henry Berkeley stated that none of the provisions of either the original or the sub- charter were incorporated into the re-charter. except the stipulation that the amount to be paid should be the same. That meant that the United States Government were to pay to the Ostacis the same sum as Carlowitz and Co. paid to the owners, $6000 odd a month. What the plaintiffs claimed was that they had a duty under this re-charter to the charterers to keep the ship at all times at the disposal of the United States Government for the purpose of the re- oharter. That he was prepared to concede. Having given their consent as owners to the employment of the ship under the re-charter, and having control of the master and crew, it undoubtedly was the duty of the owners to keep the ship at all times, as was reasonably possible, ready to perform the re-charter. He put it to the Court that supposing the appellants had failed to perform their duty, that could not possibly give Carlowitz and Co. the right to repudiate the original charter. What they were liable to in consequence of their breach was to make good to the Ostacia any pecuniary loss sustained by them in consequence of the appellants' failure to perform the duty which they owed to them and the United States Government in respect of the re-charter.
Hon. Mr. Pollock referred to the statement of claim, in which clause 5 of the original char- ter was substantially set out, and on that they pleaded that no charter money was due while the vessel was off the charter party. No potica was given to plaintiffs until August-though the wreck was in July-that the vessel was off the charter, and charter money was paid for the whole of July, As an alternative claim, plaintiffs then pleaded they were entitled to the amounts paid in ignorance-irrespective of whether the charter had been rightly or wrongly cancelled. Even if it was found that the respondents were totally wrong in cancelling the charter, it did not follow that the appellauts would succeed on the counter claim. The cancelling of the charter party in September, 1902, was the act of the United States Government, not the act of the respondents, and the extra charter money was lost through the act of the American Government. For that act respondents could not be held liable. The Salamanca was wrecked near Manila, and remained in dook for a couple of months. Then she had to start afresh on an entirely new and independent voyage. With respect to the implied contract to have the ship ready with all possible despatch, as referred to by Sir Henry Berkeley, Counsel argued that an actual breach of an express contract-not an implied contract for the failure to pay the Dock Company's bill was not an excepted peril. The vessel w-8 arrested by the ock and was kept under arrest for some time. The admissions of facts by the appellants showed that this delay frustrated the charter. The United States Government were entitled to cancel the charter; the substance of it was that the ship was to be employed continuously by the said Government, certain happenings exo-pted, If the United States had grounds for can. calling, it was competent for Carlowitz and Co. to do so.
Sir Henry Berkeley pointed out that had the Dock bill been paid on the 20th, the United States would have continued the charter and
was
then, he asked, where would resp ndents have been with their notice of cancellation of the 15th ? The vessel was actually handed over
sail when she and was ready to seized. he purposes of the voyage were not frustrated, another ship was chartered and the only remedy for the delay was an action for compensation,
The case was adjourned.
Wednesday, December 18th.
IN CRIMINal JurisdicTION. BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGgott (Chief
JUSTICE).
FORGERY CHARGE ADJOURNED,
Lam Wing, Han Kee, Li Hi-shiu and Hop Wo-tong were placed in the dook on a charge of forgery.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
His Lordship-How about the recogniz- ances P
The Attorney-General-They propose, I un- derstand, to offer $2000 bail, and we propose to accept a joint bond of $2000 cash.
His Lordship-For all four,
|
[December 23, 1907.
When
The Hon. Mr. W. Rees Davies, Attorney- | they were hauling in their fishing nets, another General, who was instructed by Mr. G. E. boat approached which bad a crew of six men. Morrell from the Crown Solicitor's office, When the vessel ran alongside three of these maid the four prisoners had been committed men boarded the fishing junk, all beiny armed for trial on charges of forgery and uttering. with knives, revolvers or some kind of firearms. One of the four men on the fishing craft was He asked his Lordship to allow the case to
The solicitor on either pushed, or fell overboard. The boarders stand over till next sessions. the other side, Mr. R. Harding, was quite then asked the master of the fisher. where he agreeable to such a course.
kept his money, and on being told, descended into the hold and found the box, which contained $54 in twenty and ten cent pieces. They also secured some fish, oars and other small things on board, and at the request of the fishermen, rescued the man who went overboard. the robbers had transferred all the stolen property to their own junk they rowed away towards the east. The matter was reported that night by the four men to the polios at Aberdeen. Some days later the same fishermen, while out in their junk, fell asleep, and awokó to see that four men armed with revolvers and other kinds of firearms had boarded their oraft. These men demanded all the money the fisher. men possessed, and stripped the boat of every. thing worth taking. This story was corroborated by all the prosecutors, but the difficulty would be as to the identification of the men. "All the prosecutors would speak to certain of the prisoners, but it was a curious fact that no two The stolen could identify the same man. property was found by the plice in a matshed near where the prisoners were arrested.
The Attorney-G ›neral—Yes, a joint bond. His Lordship-For forgery f The Attorney-General-The Crown Solicitor has considered the matter.
His Lordship-Very well, if you are satisfied Case adjourned,
PIRACY AND ROBBERY.
Wong Cheung-tai, Lam Shek-on, Chan Wa and Cheung Fo-shing were indicted on charges of piracy and robbery, and pleaded not guilty.
His Lordship-I see the indictment contains charges on Common Law as well as under the Ordinance. I have very grave doubts as to whether there is any Common Law offence exist- ing after that provided by the Ordinance, and it makes it exceedingly difficult to explain matters to the jury.
The Attorney-General-We bad some diff. culty in framing the indictment, as it is a question whether it is piracy at all. The prisoners were committed for trial under su Ordinance which had no application in this case; the Ordinance deals with the setting out for piracy. The question arises as to whether the offence was committed within the waters of In order to the Colony, or on the high seas. constitute piracy at Common Law it must be within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty.
His Lordship-I think any question with regard to the indictment is taken before the plea of the prisoners, and we mast put this malter perfectly straight, the same as if the prisoners were defended. That being so I think we should clear up this first question on the indictment. I see your charge says on the high seas. That would be piracy by Inter- national law, and therefore piracy by Common Law. But does it fall outside the Piracy Statutes? They are in force in the Colony,
you know.
he Attorney-General-I was doubtful if that was 50.
His Lordship-In the constitution of the Colony the Statutes are in force. In 1841 they were in force in the Colony, therefore the old Piracy Statutes are now in force.
The Attorney-General-I am not sure that the Piracy Siatates actually meet the case.
His Lordship-I think those points should be taken.
The Attorney-General-I will explain to your Lordship my position in the matter. The evidence apparently shows that the offence was committed in territorial waters
His Lordship-Lama Island, that is within the waters of the Colony, and that being so you don't want the Piracy Statuts.
The Attorney-General-I have based the counts on a direct precedent of a case tried in this Court.
His Lordship-This question has never been raised before.
The Attorney-General-In the other case the charge was merely one of armed robbery In the present although it took place at sea. case, assuming the evidence shows the offence to have been committed on the high seas, it is a case of piracy. If it does not, then it is robbery.
His Lort-hip-I think, if your evidence in that the offence took place at Lama Island, I should drop the Common Law counts,
The Attorney-General-As your Lordship pleases.
The following jurors were then called :-C Glover (foreman), T. Seggis, A. Ogilvie, A. M Jaffer, H. E. Craddock, I. 8. Lery and E. Howard.
The Attorney-General told the jury that the charge against (the prisoners at the bar was armed robbery within the waters of the Colony. It appeared that on November 14th four mos | were fishing on a junk at a place near Lama Island. At about eight o’slook at night, as
|
|
|
|
|
After hearing the evidence the jars, with ont retiring, found all of the prisoners guilty on each count, and his Lordship sentenced them to five years imprisonment on each count, the sentenes to run concurrently.
Thursday, December 19th.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION,
BEFORE SIE FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHILF JUSTICE).
ENKOLMENT OF A SOLICITOR.
Hou. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., instructed by Mr. R. A. Harding, appeared in support of a motion for the admission of Mr. P. 3. Dixon to the local Bar. He moved that Mr. Dixen be approved, admitted and enrolled to practise 8.5 a solicitor or prostor of this honourable Court. His Lordship had before him the affidavits made by Mr. Dizon, and by Mr. R. A. Harding, and Counsel asked him to make the unal order assenting to the motion. He might mention that Mr. Dixon's father was a Justice of the Peace for the County of Cumberland, and be had for three times soted as Mayor of
Carlisle.
His Lordship-Mr. Dixon, Í have read the papers through and found them in order. I have very much pleasure in welcoming you to the Court, and to order that your name should be added to the ever increasing roll of solicitors of the Court,
Mr. Dixon-I am much obliged to your Lord. ship for your kind remarka.
A PARTNership DISPUTE.
His Lordship delivered judgment in the action brought by the Kwong Fang Wo frm gainst the Wing Ki Cheong and the trial of the issue between the plaintiff firm and Chan Man-chi, otherwise Chan Pai Sin-tong, and Yim Wai-tak, alias Yim Ping kai alias Yim Quon, to decide whether the latter were partners in the Wing Ki Cheong,
Mr. M. W. Blade, instructed by Mr. Sargent (of Messrs. Wilkinson sad Grin) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Sir Henry Berkeley, K.C., instructed by Mr. Otto Kong Sing, for the defendants.
The Chief Justice said-I very much regret that when I was trying this action I had rather an aoute attack of the prevalent complaint so common 10 the Colony at this time of the year, and therefore I am afraid certain points just have eoaped me during the trial and I hav got to do what I very much object to doing that is notion in the judgment certain ppimin which I did not pat clearly or as all to Counsel. engaged, but I had so clear a view on thes points that I did not think it neosmarý the parties to the trouble of further argument. First, I may say that this le partnership izena in which the inoue la by the use of ing names. I do not know wh