820
a
Warrant from the Vice Admiralty Court, which had naturally called forth complaints and protests from the Acting French Consul and others.
I have now to report the result of the action was entirely in the favor of the "Ava", the Court deciding that the other vessel, the Ronia, was solely to blame for the collision.
I enclose a copy of the decision published in the local journal "China Mail" 10 June, 1878.
In Ball-
I have the honor to be,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's most obedient,
humble Servant,
Whannelly
Governm
THE CHINA MAIL.
HONGKONG, MONDAY, JUNE 10, 1872.
SUPREME COURT.
IN ADMIRALTY. (Before His Lordship the Acting Chief Justice, with Captains Hewlett, R.N., and Barnet, R.N., as Assessors.)
10th June, 1872.
THE Rona
THE Ava Cross-Suits.
Mr Drummond, instructed by Mr J. J. Francis, appeared for the Rona, and the Acting Attorney General, instructed by Messrs Caldwell and Brereton, for the Ava.
His Lordship delivered the following judgment to-day-
These were cross-causes of damage arising out of a collision which occurred at about a quarter to eight on the evening of the 14th April last, when the colliding vessels were about twenty miles S.S.W. of Turnabout Island. The colliding vessels were the Ava and the Rona. The Ava was one of the French mail packets, at the time of the collision carrying the mails from Hongkong to Shanghai; the Rona was the private property of a merchant Steam Company, and, at the time of this sad accident, resulting in its total loss, the loss of the lives of several on board and the whole of the cargo, was sailing under the British flag from Shanghai to Swatow.
Now I am of opinion that the most convenient course for determining this case on the merits is to examine the questions proposed to the nautical Assessors and their general replies to them. The questions are as follows:- Was there such negligence or want of ordinary care or caution on the part of the Ava, the Rona, or both, as but for such negligence or want of care or caution, the collision would not have occurred? Was the collision in your judgment occasioned by inevitable accident? understanding by the term inevitable accident whether the collision could not possibly have been prevented by proper care and seamanship under the particular circumstances of the Case. If you answer the first question affirmatively, be pleased to state in what in your opinion such negligence or want of care or caution consisted.
After due consideration with the gentlemen who have assisted me, the Court is of opinion that there are no circumstances or facts proved before it which could range the present case under the category of inevitable accident. That question therefore is altogether disposed of and brings us to the next.
Were both vessels to blame for the collision? That question is answered by the nautical Assessors in the negative, and the Court fully concurs in the conclusion at which they have arrived. The only remaining question therefore is, Which of the two vessels, the Ava or Rona, is solely to blame for the collision?
The Court is satisfied the Rona is solely to blame, for the following reasons:- First, there was want of proper care and caution on her part in carrying sail and maintaining such high rate of speed when her lights and those of any vessel approaching from the opposite direction would obviously be obscured by her smoke. Secondly, there was neglect in not porting the helm of the Rona at the instant of seeing the Ava's lights. This the Assessors advise me was in their opinion a case of meeting nearly "end on", and each having the other (according to calculation) not more than a point on the bow.
There appears to have been further neglect on the part of the Rona in not causing her engines to be stopped when danger was imminent. I think it proper to add that both Assessors give it as their opinion in distinct terms that no blame for this unfortunate accident can be imputed to the Ava. Applying my own judgment therefore to the advice tendered to me by the Assessors, I pronounce the Rona solely to blame for this collision and decree accordingly. The costs in both causes will follow the event.
160