140
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
(Februar
SUPREME COURT.
Friday, 13th February. ·
IN ADMIRALTY JERISDICTION. -
BEFORE HIS HONOUR SIR WILLIAM M GOODMAN (Chief Justice) and Come. EDWARD B. KIDDLE, H.M.S. "ALBION" (ASSESLOE),
CHU LEUNG v. 8.8. “HOIHO." His Lordship delivered judgment in the case in which Chu Leung, alias Chu Kwong, alias Chu Sing Un, sued the 8.8. Hoiho for damages in respect of the collision which occurred between the Hoiho and the stern-wheel paddle junk Wo Di on 7th March, 1962, in the Canton River, on which occasion about 50 persons were drowned.
it was quite dark at the time. It was alleged | engines were going. on' the part of the junk that she had a cross-examination round lantern at the masthead, similar in contact the junk
to the one produced in Court, and that her side and we went on just past hør the two square lanterns hung up to light and dropped anchor. With regard to the coolies who worked the treadles, although | not navigation lights, were yet so suspended under the open arched roof covering the coolies in front of the steersman (who stood on a small raised deck near the stern) as to act as stern lights. It was also alleged that up to, and at the time of, the collision the masthead lantern and the other two mentioned were alight. In view, however, of the evidence of Paxton (the master), Ho Po (the pilot), Chau Kiu (the look-out man) and Lai Ah-tung (the man at the wheel), on board the steamship, I am of opinion that there was no proper masthead light alight at the time in question, and I am further of opinion that the lanterus that lighted the coolies at work were not of any material use as navigation lights. I bold therefore that, as regards lights, the abst ce of such proper lights as any reasonably careful junk-master should have exhibited materially contributed to the collision. After considering the evidence given on both sides it seems clear that the steamer had her regulation lights and was seen by the juuk people at least a mile away. The evidence for the plaintiff was that the steamer's red, green and white lights were clearly seen, and were seen all the time, and came nearer and nearer. In the circumstances it seems strange that the junk pec ple did not show a lantera or a flare-up light. Possibly it may not be the custom to do so on the Canton River but where, as I have found to be
was seen
minutes
occurred before the collision, for two, three or four minutes, the shadow drow nearer and nearer and then we stopped In two minutes more I saw the sail and reversed. The shadow was something on the river. We could not have passed between the junk and Sepoy Island.. There was not enough water. The shadow was on our left when we first saw it and on the left of the river. We had passed the Tai Mei light 20 cheongs (say 80 yards) when we first saw the shadow or dark object. At the time of the collision it was dark. The chief officer did the telegraphing. I did the whistle at his request. Now, taking this evidence as approximately correct (though I think he placed the junk's course at too large an angle with that of the steamer) the shadow or dark object on the
BİX say about river
Now, from a point before the collision. about 80 yards past the light to the point where the collision occurred the distance was about 600 yards. A steamer going four knots an hour would cover that distance in about four minutes and a half; and, assuming that her engines were stopped for the last two minutes and finally reversed so that she was almost stationary at the moment of collision, six minutes might well be a rough estimate of the time she would take to traverse the 600 yards. It is clear that the steamer's stem struck the junk either on her starboard quarter or more probably on her starboard side, quite close the case here, a junk is quite insufficiently to the sters. This impact, coupled with the that it is difficult to see it action of the tide, was quite sufficient to turn lighted, so in the dark till one is very near, common her over on to her port side, although the sense would suggest the propriety of attracting steamer was not damaged in any way. It s'ems the attention of an overtaking steamer whose also clear that if those navigating the steamer three lights continued to be visible from the had stopped the engines immediately the warn- juuk till the collision. It is neglecting reason- ing Cross bow, have got something ahead able precautions to wait till the steamer is close was given, or had starboarded the helm as soon up and then to merely shout out, In this case,
as the junk was seen, the collision might have ୧୧୧୩୪ the shouts were not been averted. It was stated in evidence that moreover, it heard. It is to be regretted that the steersman the breadth of the junk was about 13 feet. The of the junk was drowned, so that his evidence steamer was the overtaking vessel and going is not available. I pass now to the action of the through the water quite twice as fast as the steamer, In the def. ndant's preliminary act it jank; prima facie, it was her duty to keep out is stated that the junk was first seen from the
of the way.
'T'he engines were not revorseïl'till Iloilo when it was about 200 feet away/on the pilot saw the sail and made out it was a the port tow. It appears that after passing junk, sul that, according to his evidence, was the
Shek barrier. Paxton. the when the junk was forty or fifty yards off. master. left the bridge, which was about Yet these navigating the steamer had had 20 or 25 feet from the bow, learing the chief the notice, "Cross bow, have got something officer, Duncan Bowie, there in charge, with the ahead" some five minutes before reversing,
and there was plenty of time. going 08. pilot Ho Wo, who had known the river for over six years. Lai Ah-tung was at the wheel aud the steamer was against a two-knot tide, to Chau Kiu was look-out man. All three were
have completely stopped her before the on the bridge from which the vessel is steered, collision, for the "something abend" must and all, except the chief officer-who died. I clearly have been a craft of some kind. think, last November-were called as witnesses. My nautical assessor is of opinion that those The evidence of the pilot is very material. In rosponsible for the navigation of the steamer | examination-in-chief in Court he said- We were to blame as well as the junk, and I am passed the Tai Mei light and after going a therefore compelled to hold that both parties little way I saw a shadow on the port bow. It are to blame for the collision. Mr. Sharp called was reported by the look-out man who said in my attention to the case of The Englishman Chinese, There is a shadow in front; look (reported in S. Probate Division), where Sir out." I repeated it to the chief officer in Robert Phillimore devided' that where the English, Cros bow, bare got something schooner The Englishman ran down a French ahead.' I was standing on the port side and the trawler which had not proper side-lights, she- chief officer on the starboard side of the bridge. alone was liable for the damage caused. But in We were only a few feet apart. I was by the that case it was held that there was no look-out on side of the helmsman. The chief officer looked the schooner and that, therefore, the absence of carefully. The shadow came nearer and the regulation side-lights on the trawler did not chief officer flew the whistle a long blast. Then contribute to the collision. The judge expressly he telegraphed down to stop the engines and held "that the side-lights of the L'Etoile (the then to go astern. We first made out it was trawler: would have been unseen as much as the- a junk when I saw the sail. Then the telegraph mast-head light," because there was no look-out. was set full speed astern. When we made out Moreover, in that case the trawer ** had a white she was a junk she was 4" or 50 yards off. fight visible a mile distant at least, and bad I could see no lights. I could make out which was flare-up shown, but neither white light nor fare--
In the present case the absence- - the bow and which the stern." He then with up was seen,” models showed the relative positions of the of proper lights did very materially contribute junk and steamer, putting the junk on a course to the collision. Accordingly I hold both
ber across the which would take
bow parties to blame, and the result is the plaintiff - of the steamer almost at right angles. He will recover half the dams Mes which he can, 7 continned as follows :—“ The junk went on and prove to have been caused by the collision, then al the steamer stopped. We never changed our account to be taken in the usual way. « Each synt course at all. I cannot say whether the junk party must bear its own costs. It may be wellsy did. There was not water. enough for us to to add that this action was brought before the **** - have gone to starboard of the junk and we had new Ordinance, No. 39 of 1902, with reférence est not time either. We called out to them not to to collisions between junks and ships, cản cross our bows. We got no answer and did not force, so that it is not necessary in t bear them shout. When the collision happened 'disaeuss its provisions® we were going forward very slowly and the
Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C (instructed by Mr. Paget Hett of Messrs. Mounsey and Brutton, solicitors), was counsel for the plaintiff, and Mr. M. W. Slade, barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr. C. B. H. Boavis of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, solicitors) was for the defendant.
His Lordship in delivering judgment said--- This case was heard on the 5th, 6th and 7th of February, 1903. On the morning of the 7th March, 1902, about 5.20 or 5.25 a.m. a collision cccurred near the western extremity of Sepoy Island in the Tai Mei branch of the Canton River, between the stern-wheel paddle junk Wo Li and the steamship Hotho At the time of the collision the junk had a cargo on board worth, as alleged by the plaintiff, some $16,000 or $17,000 and a large number of passengers. The collision does not appear to have been a violent one, but it caused the junk to go over right on to its side with the sail in the water, and, although the Hotho, after the collision, stayed and rescued many of the passengers, unfortunately many lives were lost as well as the cargo and the junk. Much of the loss of life is owing to the fact that many Chinese passengers were locked up in the cabin as a precaution against piracy. In these circumstances the plaintiff snes for damages, alleging the collision to have been caused solely by the negligence of those navigating the steamer. It appears that the junk was propelled by three rows of coolies who facing the stera held on to bars and caused the paddles to revolve
Tai treadles connected with by stepping on machinery moving the wheel. The junk, which plies between Sainam and Canton, had left Sainam the previous day, and, soon after 5 am, on the morning of the 7th March, 1902, passed the Tai Mei light, taking a between the light and the land and having the light on the starboard side. Theu after round- ing the point of 'and she proceeded in a direction somewhat north of north-west, having Sepoy Island on the starboard side sad making towards the northern bank of the Tai Mei branch of the river, which leads to Canton. The Hoiho, a steamer of some 600 tons of which George Augustas Paxton was the master, left Hongkong for Canton on 6th March. About 11.15 p.m. she anchored off Taipo, leaving agaiu about 3,30 a.m. on the 7th. After passing the Tai Shek barrier she slowed her engines to half-speed. The tide was running down about two knots an hour or a little more, and after slowing down she was going somewhere about four knots an hour over the ground. She also passed the Tai Mei light but on the outside, that is to say, having the light on her port side, and then headed in what may roughly be called a north-westerly direction, to pass Sepoy Island on her way to Canton It is obvious that the courses taken by the junk and the steamer would bring them close together. The jank was making about two knots an hour over the ground and the steamer was going about twice as fast, or a trifle more. There was very little wind; what there was seems to have been north-east, and the junk's sail was not of mach use in accelerating her progress, though it was fully up. There was some conflict of evidence as to whether dawn had begun. It is clear, however, from the evidence put in from the Hongkong Observa- tory that the sun rose on the morning of 7th March 1902, at 6.17; and, after carefully con. sidering the evidence I find as a fact that the collision occurred not later than 5.25 and th
course
We
|
|
The Court adjourned.
into that tost
Dez Lib
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.