CO129-325 - Public Offices & Others - 1904 — Page 597

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

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

Edit History

2026-06-02 03:45:37 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
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
Baseline (Original)
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 Wingchal, 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 redlight 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 circum- stances, 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/
2026-06-02 03:45:37 · Baseline
View content

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 Wingchal, 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 redlight 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 circum-

stances, 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/

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.