196
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
THE CANTON RIVER COLLISION about 15 degrees. The junk was always on her
CASE.
TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT.
Mr. Justice Bourne of H.B. .'s Supreme Court for China recently came to Canton to try an action brought by the owners of the junk Man On against the owners of the steamship Nan-chang Captain R. Archibald, master of the mail steamship Empress of China assisted the Court as Nautical Assessor. Mr Loftus Jones of Shanghai appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs and Mr H. J. Gedge. of Messrs Johnson, Stokes and asters, appeared for the defendants.
We have already announced that a decision has been rendered in favour of the plaintiffs. The text of the Judgment, which was delivered in Shanghai on the 26th ult. is as follows : --
This action was heard at Canton on the 8th, 9th and 10th February, 1909, on the plaintiff's petition, there being by consent no answer
The Man On is a Chinese owned junk of 5000 piculs carrying capacity, and the Nanchang a British-owned twin-screw steamship of 1044 fons net. The junk was sailing down the Canton River from Canton to Hongkong, and the steamer going up, when they collided at a point between Amherst Light and Second-bar creek, with the result that the junk sank. The junk alleges that the collision was dus entirely to the negligence of those on board the steamer and sues for damages accordingly.
The two agree that the collision happened about 1.30 to 1.45 a.m. on 12th November, 1908; that the wind was N. to N.N.E. a moderate breeze; that the night was fine and clear with bright moonlight; and that the tide was flood.
The junk's case is that she was under all plain sail trimmed to keep her along the East bank going at the rate of 10 to 11 li an hour (say 3 miles) over the ground, that she was carrying masthead and capstan lights burning brightly and that a good lookout was being kept. When at a point N. of the Second-bar Creek she was at a distance of about 14 to 15 li (say five miles) the masthead light of a steamship which proved to be the Nanchang hearing about two points on her starboard bow. There was some discussion at the bar as to what two points on the Chinese compass meant, but this is immaterial for it clearly appeared in evidence that the navigators of the junk kuow nothing about points and in talking about points were explaining ignotum per ignotius. When about eight li distant the junk made out the green light of the Nanchang, which continued to approach at a rapid pace. The junk was kept on the same course with sails set as aforesaid. She waved her capstan light on her starboard side, but the steamer continued to approach rapidly and when close to her apparently changed her course to starboard and struck with her stem the starboard quarter of the junk abaft the main mast and did her so much harm that she shortly afterwards sank. The junk and the steamer were caught together
for five minutes
The case for the steamship is that she was steering N. 3/4E, when at Blake Point she changed her course to N. by W. 1/4 W. being about 1/4 mile from the bank on her starboard side of the channel. Before she got to the mouth of the Greek midway between Blake Point and Amhurst Light, she changed her course to N. W. by W. keeping on that course for half a mile when she changed to N.N.W., and kept on this course till she reached mhurst Light which she passed at a distance of about half a mile. She first saw the masthead light of the junk half a point on her starboard side at a distance of 24 miles, when on the N.N.W. course. She was going at a speed of 91⁄2 miles an hour and with a tide of about one mile an hour, over the ground. At Amhurst Light she changed her course to N.. the junk being then about a mile off 13 point on her port bow. She kept on this course for four minutes before the collision, say mile. While she was on the N. course, the junk being on her port side at a distance of about her ship's length, the junk crossed her bows. The steamer blew two short blasts, put her helm hard a starboard and the port side engine full speed astern, but she could not avoid a collision and struck the junk on the starboard side aft of midships at an angle of
|
port side after the steamer changed her course to above. After the collision the steamer anchored, lowered a boat and brought off the crew of the junk so that no lives were lost.
ex-
|
[March 6, 1909.
Thus
me that this would not have been the appro- priate manoeuvre but that the star-board engine would also in that case have been stopped or reversed. For the junk, we had the evidence of two steermen, a lookout-man forward, and a man whose duty it was to look out aft. both the weight of evidence and inherent probability are in favour of the steamer's version. I have no doubt and Captain Archibald agrees with me that the junk caused the collision by rashly crossing the bows of the steamer.
I must next enquire whether the steamer is also to blame. I find on the evidence that the steamer was keeping a good lockout. Captain Archibald thinks she was not going too fast and that there was no reason why she should not have been going full speed, there not being many junks about up. (The "Jesmond" and the Earl of Elgin "L.R.A. P.C.A. p: 7.) He thinks there was no risk of collision until the junk suddenly changed her course and that then a collision was almost inevitable. He thinks that the steamer did all that could be expected of capable navigators to avoid the collision; although he thinks that she might possibly have gone versing the star-board engine, but that this is clear by putting her helm hard to port and re-
not a manœuvre to be reasonably expected from a seaman of competent skill and ex- perience, who will ordinarily take the safe- course of going under the stern of the other ship when there is danger of collision.
!
I therefore hold the junk solely to blame and give judgment for defendants with costs.
I wish to add that it would be a great benefit to junk masters on crowded waterways much frequented by both steamers and junks, if they had translated for them the more necessary of the Regulations for preventing collisions at sea. Neither of the loadahs of this junk knew the meaning of one short blast from a steamer. aptain rchibald suggests that junks ought to be induced to carry two white lights, a higher one on the aftermast and a lower one on fore- mast as most steamers now do. The account of the collision entered in the steamer's dock log was very insufficient; and such a lack of detail would certainly have told against her in a doubtful case.
1
On these two versions of the facts there is only one substantial point of difference, namely whether the junk crossed the steamer's bows That is the main issue. It was of course the steamer's duty to get out of the way of the junk, and the steamer must therefore be presumed to blame unless she shows that the collision was due to such conduct of the junk as to render it impossible for the steamer by the avoid the collision. The junk says she never ercise of ordinary capable seamanship to
saw the steamer's red light this Captain Archibald-an Officer of long experience and high character, on whom the parties agreed as Assessor says he cannot believe, por can he
anything like five minutes. On all the evidence believe that the ships were caught together for and particularly from the position of the wreck, Captain Harris, a witness for the junk, put it, a he thinks the collision happened much where
quarter of a mile or rather more above light but further out in the steam-say a quarter mhurst
of a mile from the left bank, because on the flood tide there would be an indranght at the Second-bar Creek as soon as the creek opened out which would tend to float the wreck where she was found, ie, on the lower bank of the creek. The junk says that she was coming down under the left bank with the steamer on her starboard bow and did not change her course before the collision. Now how does this accord the steamer after passing Amburst Light must with inherent probability? On this hypothesis, always have had the junk well on her starboard bow and must have run into her without any reason that can be thought of, for she had the whole river open to her on her port side. The steamer could only have done this if she had be- come unmanageable or if her look-out had been drunk or asleep. But there is no evidence at all pointing in that direction: indeed I think the way she was handled after the collision makes such a supposition impossible for the maneuvres of getting clear of the junk, turning and anchoring was well executed, and the Chief Officer, who was on the bridge at the time of the THE HONGKONG PERJURY APPEAL. ellision, went himself promptly off in a boat and rescued the junk's crew. On the other
FULL COURT DECISION REVERSED. hand the steamer's version accords with inherent probabilities; she says that on her course from
Messrs. Brutton aud Hett, the solicitors for Amhurst Light she had the junk on her port the appellants in the perjury case arising out of bow and she intended to pass her port to part, the bankruptcy proceedings in connection with that she was in a safe position because if the the Lai Hing Bank, have been telegraphically junk had kept her course they would have passed informed that the Privy Council has upheld the with a ship's length between them in these appeal and reversed the decision of the Full circumstances when a ship's length off, the junk Court. The proceedings commenced in 1905, suddenly changed her course to port and came and the perjury was alleged to have been com- across her bows. A probable reason for this mitted on the hearing of the trial of an issue tô manœuvre on the part of the junk is not far to decide whether Wong Ka Cheun (since dead) seek: Chao Tai the laodal in charge said: Every time I meet a steamer I keep close to
was a partner in the Lai Hing firin at the time of its bankruptcy. Not only was it decided that He may have found himself rather Wong Ka Cheun was not a partner, but the further out than he expected or the steamer Chief Justice held that the witnesses who gave further in and have gone across the steamer's evidence against Wong Ka Chean were guilty bows in order to get into what he thought his of perjury and committed them to prison for right position. The wind would have served three months straightway, with the exception him without touching his sails. He may have of one who had left the Court before the issue miscalculated the steamer's speed. She was was decided. These men were prominent Chin- going full speed with the tide, and the ese merchants, and their summary arrest created bright moon -always a treacherous light no little sensation in the community. The Full may have caused him to misjudge her position. Court was moved and the men were liberated Again the weight of evidence is greatly in favour of the steamer's version.
after serving a fortnight, but the appeal went For the against the appellants, who, however, obtained steamer we had a clear and consistent account from the Chinese Pilot in charge, evidently an
leave to take it to the Privy Council. As al- experienced and competent man; from the Chief days ago, the case came before the Judicial ready reported in the Daily Press a few Officer who holds an extra-Master's Certificate Committee of the Privy Council on February who was on the bridge and who telegraphed to 3rd, when Lord Macnaghten, Lord Atkinson, reverse the port engine; from the Chinese Lord Collins and Sir Arthur Wilson heard the Quarter master at the wheel; from the lookout-appeal. Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., appeared for the man forward; and from the Engineer who produced his log showing that he reversed the port engine. If we believe that the junk's story We must believe that the steamer's helm Was never starboarded and the port engine never put full speed astern, and that the witness called for the steamer were guilty of prejury and conspiracy: if this had been so I think one or more of them must have broken down under cross-examination. It was suggested by the junk that the order to go astern with the port engine was given after the quilision in order to get clear, but Captain Archibald advises
bank.
appellants, there being no appearance for the other side. Judgment was then reserved, but it has now been delivered, to the effect already. stated.
The names of the Chinese merchants are:
Chan Hang Kin, Chan Ya, Tsang Hang Wan, Sai Ho, Lau Sing Ki Chu Kai Un, and Ng In Ting.
A Japanese newspaper published at Dalay understands that Messrs. Butterfield and Swire intend to open a branch in that port with Mr. A.T. Atway in charge.
A