helm
21, 1902.
|
CHÍNA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
|
|
this
the Tai-cheong' minutes before the sorew got out of water, | after the Tul-
The master accounts for the fact that she sank where she shows as he passed through did, stern towards the shore. The version of noc irate. As regirda close to the north shore as there the captain of the Tai-cheong puts the Akramstud "collision took place abon When through, he steered for just before the collision in a position close to ie, from 100 yarla off the Admiralty Dook. He saw the shore where I do not believe she was, and If the place whên hô ights of the Tua cheong about a mile which would have bɔ n quite out of the course | Metropole is mile the cente three quarters off, a top light and a she had been steering. It must be remembered radius of 600 yards the circumfe green light. He also saw another top light that til very shortly before the collision | intersects nor encloses the place and green light behind the Tai-cheong (no the Skramstad was steering for the white assigned by either pirty, though it doubt those of the Perla). Two or three light, having it on her port bow. What nearer the spot markel on exhibit 8 bi minutes afterwards he saw the red lights. He object could she hɩte in anddenly going right master of thy Tui-cheong. On the other hand, says: “ The Tai-cheong then showed her red out of her course and coming so close to hath palled for about eight minutes in a fire- cared whaler (which I am linformed was light, she came a little on my starbroad bow, the Hongkong shore near Braçmır l'oint as
the boat in which he w), I estimate that he about half a point, and showed her red light. I she is represented by the master of the Tai- then ported my helm so as to get the Kowlo cheong to have done ? • His diagram (exhibit 6) | could have travelled a good 1,000 yards in that light on my port bow. When I first saw the makes her coming out from the "Hongkong time to reach the scup of collision, and in red light the "Tai-cheong was about a mile off shore just before the collision t an angle with this point of view, ho pats the collision at ■ When I ported I showed my red. I kept red the shore to meet the Tai-cheong which is spot nearer to that assigned by the master of the Skramstad. Counsel for the appellant tried to red well clear, ・ We should have pussel well represented as going towards the shore uuder a
Yet in te Petition of the Tai- | to show by models that the collision could not clear. I shouli have passed a length clear of port helm the Perla." If he would have passed a length cheong it is alleged (para. 4) that "at the time of have occurred in the minner alleged by the evi- the collision the Tai cheong was on the extre ue deaca adanced on behalf of the Skramstid. “The clear of the Perla he would have pissel the Tai- cheong at a greater distauce. The evidence of | south side of the channel between th Har vessels, according to that evidence, were passing the master of the Skramstad is corroborated by boar limits of the Port of Victoria and the port to port with at least a clear length betwe n several other witnesses, and the steersman Lyeemun Pass." If that was so this diagram their almost parallel courses, and, very shortly gave evidence that after the Tui-cheang's green makes the Skramstad come out from somewhere before collision, were distant, reckoning from stem to stem, four or five lengths, 'It was turned to red he got an order to port, and then south of the extremз south side of the chantel. got her on his port bow about 13 points. He then Bat there is a further difficulty. If the ships | argued that as both vessels had the engines steadied and kept on. The white light for which at the time of the collision were in the position hard astern for hit period, the collision could he had been steering was also on his port bow. depicted by the master of the Tai-cheong, the not have occurred, even had the fai-cheong We thus have the steamers approaching red to Perla could not possibly have struck the Tui- starboarded. That may have been sq; but the her port side amidships. The argument is untenable when the fact that the red till they are a few lengths off each other, cheong on
learned counsel for the Tai-chemg could Tai-cheang did not put her engines hird astern and the chief difficulty in the case is to as-
only say that the master did not d› himself until con adorably less than thre minutes be certain what caused such an alteration in their respective positions as to result in the collision. justice in his diagrams. I can well understand fore the moms t of collision is proved by the Approaching each other at, say, seven knots that to make a diagram at once accordiur with engineer's log of the Tai-cheong. As regards an intervening mile would be covered in 4 his evidence and yet satisfactorily accounting the collision of the Perla with the Tai-cheong, minutes or a trifle more. It is clear that the not only for the collision with the Skramstad, it is clear that the former vessel impinged on bow of the Tai-cheong orashed into the port but als for the P、rla striking the Tai-cheong the latter vessel's port side amidships. If the bow of the Skramstad jast bəhind her forecastle- on the port side, must have presented consider-Tui-cheong starboarded at the critical moment, head at an angle (from the bow) of from 30 to able dificulties. In answer to questions which she would cross the course of the Perla and I put to the Assessors they informed me that incur a risk of collision. this is evident from 45 degrees or thereabouts, that the Weasels were locked together for some 15 minutes and that they thought the collision occurred about half the Perla being on the port quarter of the Tai- the Skramstad sank soon after the Tui-cheong a mile from the shore, that they came to the cheong only a few lengths off, and is what the got free. It is also clear that the Perla, which conclusion that the Tai cheong did starboard master of the Tai-cheong foresaw; it is curious had been on the port quarter of the Tai-cheong, hr helm and show her græn light as stated by that what he foresaw would happen did happen. struck the Tai-cheong while in collision, on the the master of the Skramstad. They were of The Perla's striking the Tai-cheong on the latter port side amidships and then caught the star- opinion that this step, whether it occurred vessel's port side was therefore the natural board anchor of the Skramstad. One has care through some mistake or not. was a wrong step sequence of such a manœuvre as, according to the fally to consider the evidence for the Tai-cheong to have taken, and tha^, in all the circum- Skramstad's evidence, the Tai-cheong executed. and for the Skramstad, respectively, to see how stances, the master of the Skramstad thereupon Now take the version of the Tai-cheong and see whether the Perla, being on the Tai-cheong's port did the right thing in putting his helm the collision occurred. It is clear that if the Tai-cheong through some mistake had starboard hard-a-port, blowing one blast on his whistle quarter, was likely to strike the Tai-cheong's port and putting the engines hard astern (as he side amidships. According to that version, the ed her helm the collision between her and the Skramstad would be accounted for, even stated he did, at p. 12 of the Notes of Evidence). Tai-cheong's helm was put hard-a-port an
seeing the it the Skromstad on
green My Assessors al o state that they do not believe appreciable time, before the collision occurred. that the engines of the Tai-cheong were reversed, This manoeuvre would have taken the Tai light of the Tai-cheong suddenly into view a few lengths off, had hard-a-ported as stated by the master, for 3 minutes before cheong further off the course of the Perla had her helm and put the engines astern. At the the collision. The Tai-cheong had considerable the Perla kept on her course, in which event she would have gone clear of the Tai-cheong; way on her when she struck the Skrumstad, as very short distance intergening, there would be
but if the Perla had followed the movements-of little time for the port helm to operate. This, is shown by the violence of the blow causing th› the master of the the Skrumstad says, is exactly Skramstad to heel over and locking the vessels the Tai cheong, this would have brought her what happened. The master of the Tai-cheong, together for of an hour; and it must not be ast rn of the Tai-cheong and she must have however, says she was never under a starboard forgotten that the Tui-cheong's logs pla ed the struck the Tai-cheong either on her stern or on helm and he stated “If I had starboarded, the reversal of the engines at 5.45 and the collision her starboard side, if she had struck her at all. Perla would have run into me." But that is at 5.45 also. I think the reversal was much Again, on another point, the Tai-cheong's helm precisely what the Perla did do she ran into less than three minutes before the colli and the Skrametod's helm both being, accord- With regard to the question whether ing to the Tai-cheong's evidence, hard-a-port at the Tai-cheong amidships and on the port side.sion. Moreover the master of the Skramstad swore that the place where the collision occurred is the instant of collision, it appears to be impos. narrow channel, do not think it sible for the Tai-cheong to have pierced the at the collision he shouted out to the master of a' the Tai-cheong "Why did you not keep your ship necessary to decide it in this case. While Skramstad as she did on the port bow: the
"narrow channel"
blow must have been a glancing blow. Whereas on a port helm ?" Having carefully considered Lyeeman is probably a the evidence of the witnesses and the disgrams within the meaning of Article 25 of the Collision the story of the Skramstad that the vessel was made by the respective masters in illustration of Regulations, which in such case requires a under a port helm whilst the Tai-cheong was their evidence, have come to the conclusion steam vessel, when it is safe and practicable, to under a starboard helm eaily accounts for the that I cannot accept the version given on behalf keep to that side of the fairway of mid-channel nature of the impact which actually occurred.
I think that there were no adequate of the Tai-cheong. It is unfortunate that the which lies on her starboard side, it by no mзaus belmsman of the Tai-cheong was not called. follows that the much wider waterway between to justify Mr. Slade's argument that He was a Malay and it seems he left the Lyeemun Pass and the entrance to the Harbour Skramstad's stern (where she was drawing 12 ship, the trip before the case was heard, is also a "narrow channel." My Assessors door 15 ft. as against 73 ft. forward) would have possible, of course, he may have made not consider it ought to be so held, and I see been raised so much out of the water by ome blunder, but we have no satisfactory evid- that in the case of the China Merchants Steam the dropping of the Skramstad's bows caused by as to whether he carried out his orders Navigation Company v. The P. and O. 8. N. the inrush of water both during the period tly or not. The evidence of the master of Company, tried befor, Bir Fielding Clarke, and contact and after the vessels got apart, that ng, does not seem at all satisfac-reported in the Daily Press of the 14th April, the screw would have been ineffective to his locount of what happened, sup 1900 his Assessors took the same view. But her astern after the moment of collis diagrams, does not in my opinion in any case I hold the Skramstad did not that both for "th's' reason and
, probable, or even possible infringe Article 25. On the whole case the Tdi cheong had an enormous weigh of the collision, especially in view decision I have arrived at is that the Tai-cheong the Skromatad did not sink
the Perla str the Tui cheong was alone to blame for the collision and that side.. I do not believe that the the appeal must be dismissed with costs. irred here he says it did, vis, 100 yards from the shore. It seems it must have occurred about he shore, and that the engines ad having gone hard astern after
· appears they did for 22
en
coma
|
|
£6
I
The Acting Puisue Judge said-I_concur in the judgment of the Chief Justice. In the first place, I cannot place reliance on the witness Shepherd's evidence so, far as his estimates of time and distance are concerned: he states that the Skramstad did not sink for 15 minutes
|
|
|
site of the collision as her master® and that therefore the collision did Wherò that captain, placed seems to have lost sight of the bulkhead of the Skramsidd prevented her u-ttling down. only during the period of for some minutes after the vessels
3
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.