ילידי
October 30, 1895.]
THE LOSS OF THE " KUNGPAI,”
LATEST PARTICULARS.
The following telegram from Kinchou has been kindly handed to us (N. C. Daily News) for publication:--
Herewith a few details about the fearful disaster which happened to the steamer Kungpai` a few days ago, 80 li from here. Captain Soden, the first and second mate, and the first and second engineer are all dead; only the third en- gineer, a Swede, is saved. The disaster occurred The
on
the morning of the 14th inst. steamer had on board 700 soldiers, when a powder explosion happened and the steamer took
fire. The crew worked hard for more than half an hour to extinguish the fire, but in vain, and another powder explosion followed. The cap- tain and chief officer were wounded by the first explosion, and they were laid in a boat to be brought to shore, but the soldiers rushed on in such great numbers that the davits broke and the boat was smashed by the heavy sea running
et that time.
The steamer sank in shallow
ap-
water and the survivors, one foreigner and 200 soldiers, were sitting on the wreck for seven- teen hours, the sea being too heavy for any boat to reach them. Twenty-seven wounded soldiers were brought to the foreign hospital here yes- terday. They look a fearful sight, scalded and burnt as they are. To judge from their pearance the steamer was wrecked by a simul. taneous powder and boiler explosion. The third engineer is leaving for Tientsin shortly.
[Kinchou, near where the explosion occurred, is the prefectural city near the north-west corner of the Gulf of Liaotung. The Kungpai was formerly the British steamer Wycliffe. She was a vessel of 940 tons gross register and 95 horse- power, built at Leith in 1880. She was com- manded by Captain R. Soden, her officers being Messrs. A. F. Ljunglof (married) Petersen, chief and second officer respectively, W. H. Graham, chief, A. Wise (married), second, and O. From, third engineer. She had a crew of nearly seventy all told, and a passenger, Master E. Clements, a lad of about seventeen.]
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
SUPREME COURT.
23rd October.
IN APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
BEFORE THE FULL COURT.-SIE FIELDING CLARKE (CHIEF JUSTICE) And Me, A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
LEONARD V. MAN FUK COMPANY, The appellant sought to set aside the decision of the Magistrate, Hon. H. E. Wodehouse, farmers, were acquitted of unlawfully moving whereby the defendants, who are the opium four chests of opium during prohibited hours
on June 16th.
327
made when they were caught, and it would of. course take a considerable time. They were found a mile and a half beyond Morrison Hill Road, and it is a fair inference that they started from Winglok 3treet before seven o'clock as they could not have come so far. in forty minutes. Therefore it is also a fair inference that the movement was continued.
The Chief Justice Is there anything to show that the opium was moved from the Mor- rison Hill Road factory after seven o'clock P.
The Attorney-General-It would be for the respondents to show that; but it is a huge im- factory and moved again, as the respondents probability that the opium was taken to the expressly stated in their application for the permit that they wanted to move it to their factory, which means they wanted to boil the four chests of opium. There was no magic. seven. The men in the clock striking were moving the opium up to seven o'clock, and the opium did not automatically move itself after seven o'clock; and the Court was justified in holding that the men who were moving the the servants of the opium opium were farmers. We are in this position. The Court decided that the boatman and coolies were not moving for themselves; if they had been moving for themselves then they were moving without a permit. If would therefore be absurd to say that it has been held that the men in the boat are not liable because they were moving for the farmers, and yet to hold the farmer was not liable. The defendants did not comę. forward to say that they did not authorise the removal after seven o'clock.
The Attorney-General then proceeded to quote cases in support of his arguments, and submitted that the respondents were themselves liable. He pointed out that the cases showed that in certain classes of cases the master was in penal
The Attorney-General (Hon. W. M. Good man) appeared for the Crown on behalf of the appellant, and was instructed by Mr. Gedge (of Messrs. Johnson, Stokes, and Master's office). The respondents were represented by Mr. J. J. Francis. Q.C. (instructed by Mr. H. L. Dennys): The Attorney-General said the appeal was on a point of law and arose out of the Raw Opium Ordinance. The respondents were charged at the Police Court with illegally moving four chests of opium between the hours of 7 p.m. on June 16th and 5 a.m. on June 17th and the Magistrate, in the case he stated, said he could not legally convict them in the absence of direct evidence that they knew that the opium was being moved. The men who were removing the opium were caught by the appellant, a police constable, about a mile and half east of Morrison Hill Road at 7.40 in the evening. One of them produced a permit authorising the removal of the opium before seven o'clock in the evening. The opium farmers had obtained this permit, and it was admitted that the four chests of opium found in the boat were those specifically set forth in the permit. The boat-proceedings liable for the act of his servant. mian and coolie were summoned and fined, but Such cases were collected in Macdonell's "Law the conviction was reversed on appeal. In the
of master and servant," and he specially in- Justice said. "It is clear to me that the person Queen's Bench, page 292, where course of his decision in that case the Chief stanced Mullins v. Collins, Law Reports, 9 & licensed aimed at by the Ordinance is the person whose
victualler was held liable for having sold beer to business it is to apply for the permit." The
a constable on duty, though the beer was sold opium farmers were then summoned, but the by his servant in his absence and without his knowledge. The Attorney-General- v. Liddon calling upon the defence dismissed the charge, was another case in which the master was and the appeal was against this decision. Ön held criminally liable for the act of his servant. June 15th the respondents applied for a permit to remove the opium from Wingiok Street to To-day's Peking telegram states that the first their factory in Morrison Hill Road. The per- meeting of Mr. Hayashi, the Japanese Com-mit was granted for the removal of the opium missioner, and Li Hung-chang, the Chinese Commissioner, took place to-day, to discuss the Liaotung question, and the Japanese Commis- sioner explained the terms for its return.
According to rumour the demands made by Japan, after consultation with Russia. France, and Germany, are as follow:-
THE RETROCESSION OF LIAUTUNG. | Magistrate stopped the case and without
A Shanghai telegram of the 17th inst. to the Japan papers reads as follows:-
(1). That the Chinese Government shall pay an indemnity to the amount of 30 million taels.
(2). That neither Russia, France, nor Germany shall permanently occupy the Liaotung penin- sula, and that the Chinese Government also shall not cede the peninsula to any other nation. (3). That Talienwan shall be thrown open as a free trade port,
(4). That Tatung and Takushan shall be opened to foreign trade.
A Renter's telegram of the 24th inst. reads as follows:
Japan has ratified the terms concerning the evacuation of the Liaotung Peninsula and the .additional war indemnity (as per message of 21st instant), and will evacuate the Peninsula by the end of January. Japan promises not to cede Formosa or the Pescadores to any Power.
The Chantaboon correspondent of the Siam Observer informs that journal that, on the 7th inst., two officers from the gunboat Pluvier were out snipe-shooting, and one, the surgeon of the boat, had a boy with him. The two officers were separated from each other by a paddy field in which the ears of paddy were high enough to prevent them from see- ing each other. One of the officers seeing a bird raised his gun, but instead of hitting the bird he hit his fellow officer and the boy. The latter is not badly wounded, but the surgeon is in avery oritical state, having received the shots in the face and body.
|
up to seven o'clock in the evening. The opium was found being moved after seven o'clock, and the respondents had admitted that the opium in the boat was their property, and that they had obtained the permit which the boatman handed to the police. Therefore he (the Attorney-General) submitted that up to seven o'clock the facts justified anyone in holding, in the absence of contradictory evidence, that the men in the boat were moving the opium for the respondents, who alone had obtained the permit and whose opium it was. If the permit and opium had been stolen it would have been very easy for the respondents to prove it. The men having been moving the opium up to seven o'clock and that movement being continued after seven o'clock it followed.-
The Chief Justice--There was no evidence that the opium was being moved before seven o'clock.
→
The Attorney-General-It is such strong oircumstantial evidence that one could not doubt it.
The Chief Justice-What is it?
The Attorney-General-The permit mentions that the opium was to be moved from Winglok Street to the factory in Morrison Hill Road.
The Acting Puisne Judge-They were about four miles to the east of the factory, weren't they?
The Attorney-General-A mile and a half. The Chief Justice-What is the evidence to show that the movement did not commence until after seven o'clock ?
The Attorney-General-I should imagine that local knowledge-
The Chief Justice I do not know where Winglok Street is.
The Attorney-General-They must have started from Winglok Street before seven o'clock, as a considerable movement had been
C!
In the course of this legal argument the Chief Justice mentioned a curious case respecting the liability of persons. A servant's livery had been damaged by being thrown on to a rail- way line. The servant's mistress brought an action against the railway company, but she did not succeed because the livery belonged to the servant. The servant then brought an action against the company, but he, too, did not suc- ceed because the contract with the company was entered into with his mistress.
The Attorney-General said the company had since been held liable on appeal to the House of Lords.
At the conclusion of the Attorney-General's argument the Chief Justice said-The question- in my mind is whether there is sufficient proof that these men were the servants. You have got the intention to move by the opium farmer taking out the permit;, you have the admission that the permit belonged to the respondents; the opium was being moved on the day stated in the permit, and the boatman produced the permit. I am inclined to think that is a prima facie case, certainly.
Mr. Francis, for the respondents, submitted that the Crown had not established a prima facie case that the respondents were moving the opium. The Ordinance was imperfectly worded and did not sufficiently provide for all cases, and in this case, counsel submitted, the respon- dents could not be convicted. There was no presumption in law that the boatmen had any authority from the respondents to move after seven o'clock.
The Chief Justice Then you would never get a conviction under this Ordinance.
Mr. Francis said that a conviction could not be obtained under an imperfectly worded Ordin- ance. It was only an inference that the men were the servants of the respondents, and, assuming they were servants, it must be shown that they were acting within the scope of the respondents' authority. But as a matter of fact the boatmen had no authority to move the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.