Correspondence regarding the ship "Ardville" has been received, detailing a case where a payment was delayed from the same source. An application was made to the owner, W. Kittor.
It was found that W. Kittor declined on the ground that although his name appears as the registered owner, he was not the real owner, but Captain Williamson, who received and kept the earnings of the ship.
On application being made in Hong Kong to W. Williamson, he again denied the ownership of the vessel; the Attorney General declared that legal proceedings could be instituted against him.
The matter was then sent home, and the Crown Agents were directed to proceed against W. Kitto, but were informed by their Solicitors that no action would lie against W. Kitto.
Sir Frederic Rogers was pleased to state that with regard to the opinion of these gentlemen, he was directed to inform us that it was never admitted that the Ardville was supposed to be a passenger ship, or consequently, that the money advanced was recoverable under the Passengers Act, 18 & 19 Vict. cap. 119, ss. 52, 54.
And it was requested that we be informed whether this advance of $104.3.4 can, in our opinion, be recovered, either from W. Kitto or from Captain Williamson, or at the option of the Government, from either of them; and if it can be recovered at all, what steps we would advise to be taken for its recovery.
Sir Frederic Rogers further pleased to state that the whole correspondence relating to this matter...