594
as this agrees with the statements of the Yingking's witnesses, it leads me to the conclusion that this passenger's evidence, who admits that he was star-gazing at the time, is of no value in assisting me to a solution and may be disregarded. Coming to the evidence of the master of the Wingchai it transpired that at the time of the occurrence he was standing in front of, and outside the wheelhouse, the pilot being just behind and inside, the latter presumably conning the ship. On hearing the Yingking's whistle, the Master immediately ran to the starboard side of the bridge. There he observed the two side lights and the masthead light of the Yingking. The evidence of the Chief Officer of the Wingchai, also on the bridge, was that after the Yingking had blown her whistle he observed only her red (port light), having previously seen all her three lights. This evidence is conflicting insomuch that if the Master saw all three lights it can only be inferred that as the Yingking had ported on blowing her whistle, he could only have seen all three lights by porting the helm of his own ship. Otherwise he would only have seen the red light as the Chief Officer states to have done.
The evidence given by the pilot of the Wingchai is decidedly contradictory. By models he clearly demonstrated that on hearing the Yingking's whistle the wheel of the Wingchai was moved to starboard. The evidence of the defence is therefore: that of the Master who from his position at the starboard end of the bridge, was not in position to say how the wheel was handled; that of the Chief Officer who was on the port side of the bridge, placed thereby in similar circumstances, and that of the pilot and helmsman, who alone, if they desired to, could give conclusive evidence. It has been shown that the pilot's evidence is not dependable, as I have no reason to believe that he regarded the question I very clearly put to him as one representing a mythical case, and that the vessel's head moved to starboard. On further questioning, however, he was