the of
June 12, 1909.]
as to lights could not by any possibility have contributed to the collision as with proper lights, that is, a high light forward, and an. other light some fifteen feet lower and aft, the officer in question would have seen at a glance how the junk was coming. Looking at this question as a judge I see a great distinction between the facts of this case and those of the Englishman. There the trawler had infringed the regulations by not exhibiting the regula- tion lights; but the court held that in absence of EL lookout on the part the schooner, this neglect on the part of the trawler could not by any pos- sibility have contributed to the collision. Each case must be decided on its merits, and even assuming the Holstein to have been in fault by reason of a wrong inference which the second mate drew as to the course of the junk, I cannot say that this wrong inference would still certainly have been drawn had the junk shown both her lights; and therefore that by no possibility did the exhibition of the stern light only on the junk not contribute to the collision caused by the wrong inference as to her course.
I therefore hold the junk to blame. Is the Holstein also to blame? This seems to me to resolve itself into one question and one question only, there are & variety of subordinate questions but they all come back to this one. Was the
inference which the second mate drew as
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. | But his helm should have been put to starboard sooner, as he approached the junk too close before giving way. I accept these answers, The problem is not a very difficult one, and it has been worked out for me to scale by the assessor. The Holstein was going 11 knots when the junk appeared on her starboard bow. She will therefore have moved on three and a half cables in two minutes. The wind according to the Holstein's preliminary act was northerly, a fresh breeze. This was the mate's own observation; so that if the junk had been on the starboard tack as he supposed two minutes' sailing would have brought her broader on the Holstein's bow, and with the two minutes' steaming of the Holstein herself the junk would have been nineteen de grees on the starboard bow, that is, one and three quarter points. Whereas if the junk were es a fact on the port tack coming along with just steerage way, that is about one and half knots an hour, with the Holstein going at 11 knots for two minutes, the junk would have closed one degree which is inappreciable in bearing. The mate says that he saw twenty lights all in the same direction and that the nearest light, that is the plaintiff's junk, was half a point on the starboard bow, three quarters of a mile off; and that after two minutes' steaming the light widened about a quarter of a point, whereupon he altered his helm and brought the light one point on the star- board bow. In cross-examination he stretched his calculations & little, saying that the junk's light broadened from a half to three quarters or one point in these two minutes. But if his inference had been correct when he altered his course half 8
to the course of the junk & reason- able and seamanlike one? This inference was that when he first saw her light she was on the starboard tack and that his subsequent observation of her one light led him to the conclusion that she had altered her course and was coming back on the port tack. The subsidiary questions are-If he had held on his course would he have struck the junk, or did his starboarding his helm bring about the collision, or if he had ported his helm, would he still have struck her or would he have avoided her? The court is not to be wise after the event; and we know now that, if he had done anything but what in fact he did, there would have been no collision. If, as a matter of fact, the junk did alter her course, then possibly different considerations might arise. I therefore put this fourth question to the assessor-In your opinion did the junk alter her course. His answer is-No, I believe that the junk was on the port tack and kept her course the whole time the s.s. Holstein was in sight up to the collision. The assessor bases himself, of course, on the nautical evidence; and with regard to that evidence I see no reason for disbelieving the statements of the junk people as to the lights which they saw. Both men were positive that they saw the steamer's red light and nothing could shake them; it was also clear that they knew red from green. They say they saw the Holstein's mast head white light and her red light and did not see her green light till, the moment of the collision. Moreover I cannot see the slightest reason for doubting their story as to what they had been doing and as to where they had been and where they were going. They had been fishing in or about the bay for a few days, were some miles to the west of Tong Mi Point, and were going straight back to their fishing grounds. I now come to the cause of all the trouble, the inference, which the mate drew that the junk was on the starboard tack, and I think that the test of the Holstein's liability must depend on whether this was a reasonable and seamanlike inference. I therefore put this question to the assessor-Bearing in mind the fact that the junk had only one light visible and accepting the mate's evidence as true, was the inference which he drew that the junk was ou the starboard tack, a seamanlike inference? If you should answer this in the affirmative, was the manoeuvre which he did in fact execute a seamanlike manoenvre ? His answer is-When the officer of the watch on the 8.8. Holstein first saw the light I do not think for a moment that he considered what tack she was on as there was only a single light showing. Now it is a re- cognised axiom in seamanship to haul away from an unknown light and if necessary to bring it abaft the beam and so make safety of it. This involves answering the second part of the question, and to this the assessor says-I consider the officer in question acted as would be required by the ordinary practice of a seaman and by the special circumstances of this case.
+
50t
creditors have.
His Lordship-I don't see what claim the
The Official Receiver-Well, my Lord, they are the people who lose the money. The application was granted.
APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE.
Mr. F. X. d'Almada applied for the discharge of Ng Kam Sang, one of the partners of the Yuen On Company, and stated that Mr. Gold- ring, who appeared for the petitioning creditor did not object.
His Lordship asked what dividend had been paid.
The Official Receiver-No dividend yet. His Lordship-Any chance?
The Official Receiver-A dividend will be paid, but not 50 per cent. Therefore your Lord- ship is bound to suspend the discharge.
His Lordship-I might make it six months. The Official Receiver -Your Lordship gener- ally makes it a year.
His Lordship-There is nothing alleged against the man is there?
particular man, but I have something against
The Official Receiver-Not against this. the other partners.
Mr. d'Almada explained that, this man was arrested at the instance of the other partners, who afterwards disappeared.
His Lordship-As far as he is concerned, he has done everything to assist you?
The Official Receiver-Yes, my Lord, because he is under a bond to do so.
His Lordship-But the security won't be released until he is finally discharged.
An order was made suspending the discharge for six months, and the application for the release of security was adjourned until the ex- piration of that period.
A CONTRACTOR's AFFAIRS. Re Tsang King, the well-known contractort against whom a receiving order had been made on the petition of the Green Island Cemen, Company, Mr. Holborrow applied for a regiss. cion of the receiving order.
His Lordship- So are they all. Mr. d'Almada - I don't ask your Lordship to discharge the firm, but to discharge him.
The Official Receiver-The reason he is apply. point to port at the ending for his discharge is in order to get back the of the two minutes, he would have brought 81,000 furnished as security. the light even wider on the starboard bow than he says he did; it would have been all of two points, thirty seconds after starboard- ing his helm, which shows that his inference was completly wrong. It is also material to note that he came to the conclusion that all the other lights were on the same tack, that is, going away from the Holstein, so that I cannot take his observations as having been superficial. Further, I cannot understand how having come to this conclusion and thinking, as he said, that the Holstein's would pass all clear, he should also have thought it necessary even for greater safety to alter the Holdtein's course to give the junks a wider berth. I am therefore of opinion that there was no justification for the assumption that the junk
His Lordship thought the matter should be on the starboard tack and afterwards altered advertised. her course. Therefore 88 the collision
The Official Receiver said debtor was a man did result from the manoeuvre which he thought with large contracts and it was quite possible his inference necessitated. I hold the Holstein | other creditors, especially Chinese, might not also to blame. As to whether the Holstein | know. stood by sufficiently, I do not think anything turns on it. The assessor however, does not see anything to criticise in the manoeuvres adopted by the Holstein after the collision.
was
In reply to questions his Lordship said that both parties would pay their own costs.
Thursday, 10th June.
IN BANKRUPTCY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (SIR F. PIGGOTT).
FORFEITURE OF SECURITY.
A
Re Kwong Hang Tai, the Official Receiver said this was an application for the forfeiture of 3 security of 183,300 given by Sip Hing Tang and Li Hip Chu. The debtors were arrested under the Bankruptcy Ordinance, and afterwards an order was made that they should give security for their appearance in the sum of $3,300. previous application was made in June last year, when debtors appeared in Court. Since then he had obtained further information as regards property in Canton, and he wished to have the debtors examined. Debtors had been served with notice to appear.
His Lordship-How have you foreseen that they will not appear.
The Official Receiver-If they appear I don't apply.
Debtors' names were called but they did not answer.
The Official Receiver asked that the order be made so that the money could be applied to the estate for the benefit the creditors.
The Official Receiver objected that sufficient publicity had not been given to the matter, and pointed out that other creditors might come forward.
His Lordship said that, if no further creditors appeared in fifteen days, the order would be made. A BUILDER'S FAILURE.
Wong Yee, a building contractor, appeared to undergo his first public examination. In reply to the Official Receiver, he stated that he commenced the Taikoo Dock in 1901. He started with a capital of about $1,000. He had no partners. Out of Taikoo contracts he made a profit of from $20,000 to $30,000, which he put in the business. During the last two years he lost over $10,000. He lost $1,500 on a slipway and lost $3,500 on a contract for cutting away a a hill. He had several hundred workmen, and as they could not work owing to the rain, he had to support them. He had borrowed money since and he proposed to his oreditors that, if allowed to work, he would pay 10 per cent. per annum. The creditors were agreeable.
Examination closed
A MERCHANT's failure.
Re D. R. Captain, debtor stated in reply to the Official Receiver that he was unable to furnish the statements of accounts asked, as he had not kept proper books.
The examination was closed, the Official Receiver remarking that the other matters could be dealt with when debtor applied for his discharge.
The working of the Messageries Maritimes in 1908 has been much more favourable than in 1907. No dividend was distributed for 1907, but there was a net balance of £380,00 in 1908. Of this amount the service of the bonds absorbe £80,000.
༼18344R}iu