30
to me, Mr. Editor, after reading the articles in the Daily Press and China Mail I do not wish to pose as an authority on the subject and therefore beg to subscribe myself Yours, &c.,
ASTERISK.
LOCAL MALARIA FALLACIES.
TO THE EDITOR of the DAILY PRESS.
..
Hongkong, 6 h June.
SIR,-I should like to make a few remarks about the local Government's work regarding the orusade against mosquitoes, re the preven- tion of malaria, concerning which one roids so much in the Sanitary Board proceedings as reported in the local papers.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND
First, of the anopheles species of mosquito s. which probably alone orries the malarial parasite, the usual habitat is as stated in Dr. Thompson's able report on malaria prevention dated 3rd November, 1900: "little breaks in the rocky surface by the side of the streum, where the merest trickle from the stream itself pre- vents entire stagnation and where there is no through wash of water"; also report dated 25th October, 1902: "The anopheles mosquito breeds | high up in the ravines."
the sea.
It is obvious from reading the above two extracts that the anopheles, unlike the house hold pet (or pest) the culez species, prefers clean water for breeding purposes and this cannot be got at the level of the town of Victoria in which everything is filthy, there- fore it is very exceptional for an anophel s to reach maturity below the level of say Mac- Donnel Road. At about this level the training of nullahs ceases above and extends below to The only deduction therefore is that, as is quite often enough the case with Govern- ment works, the crusade against the malaria mosquito has been begun at the wrong end and finished at about the spot where it should have been begun in the first place in other words, a large amount of money lias been spent in useless training of the lower end of Dullabs where the work catches the eye, and no money has been spent on training the nullabs at the upper end with the result that the amount of malaria in the Colony has only been decreased to a small extent which can quite be explained by the better know- ledge of diagnosis and healment possessed by the more scientifically trained medical men of he present time. Secoud, the system of cutting brushwood and other undergrowth in the vicinity of houses is a great mistake and likely instead of diminishing malaria to inor ase it for the following obvious reasons.-Undergrowth only harbours adult mosquitoes when they require shelter from rain, cold or sun if this shelter is cut away what will the mosquitoes do? Die? No. They will seek shel'er elsewhere. Where? In the houses near, or willey fly away to search for more undergrowth at a distance ? Ask the people living in the houses arcund which undergrowth has been removed and they will tell you that whenever a butting has taken place the mosquitoes swarm in much greater numbers in their houses until the undergrowth grows again.
3
SUPREME COURT.
Monday, 6th July.
IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
BEFORE 18 HONOUR SIR WM. M. GOODMAN (CHIEF JUSTICE).
CLAIM AGAINST AN INSURANOR COMPANY.
The Kwong Chun Hing firm sust the Hang On Marine and Fire Insurance Co for $3,725.42, being amount due upon a policy of insurance. Mr. T. Morgan Phillips.__ barrister-at-law (instructed by Mr.C. E. H. Beavis of Messrs. Wilkinson & Grist, solicitors), appeared for the plaintiffs; and Mr E. H. Sharp, K C., barrister at-law (instructed by Mr. F. B. Deacon of Messrs. Deacon & Hastings, solicitors), was for the defe dants.
The plaintiff in their statement, of claim stated that they were interested to the amount of $5,500 under an open marine policy of insur- auce made by the defendants, for that amount, dated 23rd June, 1902, on certain perishable goods shipped on board the British steamer Zafiro. In the particulars of their claim plaintiffs said that the goods were shipped from Hongkong to Manila. The premium paid to the defendants was $13.75, being at the rate of 25 cents per $100. The goods were insured against the perils of the sea. There was a total loss as to part of the goods and construc- tive total loss as to the remainder. Notice of abandonment was given, shortly after arrival at Manila of the Zafirô, by the plaintiffs' repre- sentative to the defendants' agent at Manila. After such notice the defendants' agent agreed to take over the damaged goods as a totel loss and requested the plaintiffs' representative to dispose of the game on account of the defendant. The goods were accordingly sold, and realised after payment of expenses a net sum of $2,097.21, leaving a deficit of $4,402.78, of which amount $3,725.42 was pay able by the defendants. This sum with interest the plaintiffs claimed.
In their statement of defence, defendants as to the first part of the statement of claim admitted that the plaintiffs were interested under the policy of insurance therein men- tioned and they admitted the truth of the particulars therein contained concern- ing the voyage and perils insured against; they admitted also that part of the goods covered by the policy were damaged on the voyage. But the remainder of the goods were delivered to the plaintiffs at Manila in (as the defendants believed) sound condition. and the plaintiffs neither gave nor were entitled to give notice of abandonment thereof. As to the second part of the statement of claim, the defendants did not by their agent at Manila or otherwise agree to take over any of the goods nor request the plaintiffs to sell the same on their behalf or at all. Defendants did not know how the plaintiffs dealt with the remainder of the goods aforesaid. The defendants were and always had been ready to pay to the plaintiffs whatever sum was due from them to the plaintiffs, respecting the partial loss of the goods, and the defendants hal repeatedly asked the plaintiffs for the account of their claim in that regard, but the plaintiffs had refused to furnish the defendants with such an account. The defendants would now pay the said sum into Court, but by reason of the said refusal they were unable to ascertain the amount thereof. Save as aforesaid, defendants' denied all the allegations in the statement of claim. By virtue of an order dated 16th June 1903, there was added to the defencs the state- Dr. Morrison writes to the 7 mes under datement that by particulars contained in a letter 3rd June-The Chinese Government, while professing gratitude at the action of the United states, are not ignorant that the indemnity of £5,000,000 claimed by America exceeded her actual losses. The amount named was simply a rouud sum—a one-eighth share to each of the eight military Powers concerned of a total of 40 millions, which America considered to be the amount China should be asked to pay. Eren if she accepts payment in silver in consideration of these facts America is til left with a wide margin in her favour, though not so large, it must be admitted, as in the case of some of the Continental Powers.
Again, what are the deductions to be drawn from the above? 1st. That nearly all training of nullahs as carried on at present has been waste of time and money; and, 2nd, That the cutting of undergrowth around houses is worse than use- less. I ask you is it not time that the orusado against the malaria fiend be carried on on logical grounds for practical resultand not scenic effects. - Yours, etc.,
A SENSIBLE SCIENTIST.
dated 9th June, 1903, and written by the plain. tiffs' solicitors to the defendants' solicitors (to which the defendants craved leave to refer), the sum due from ibe defendants to the plaintiffs in respect of the said partial loss was shown as nearly $2,200. On 16th June, 1903, therefore the defendants paid into Court by leave thereof the sum of $2,200, which, the defendants said, was enough to sa isfy the plaintiffs' claim.
[July 13, 1903.
June, the Zafiro left Hongkong bount for Manila having on board about 314 packages of goods shipped by the plaintiffs to their house at Manila, and these goods were the subjec -matter of the insurance policy and of this action!
Mr. Morgan Phillips in opening the case for the plaintiffs said the sole issue in the action was whether or no after the arrival of the Zafiro at Manila there was legal abandonment of the cargo to the defendants. On or about 20th
His Lordship-By the payment into Court of $2,200, the only matter between you is $1,52 P
Mr. Morgan Phillips-Yes.
Mr. Sharp said that that sum had been paid in respect of all the particulars they had yet bad; if particulars of yet further partial loss were provided they were prepared to pay it. the 195 packages in dispute the insurance com- His Lordship remarked that with regard to pany did not deny that there was some damage done to them. They said they did not know bow much it was, and the plaintiffs said it did not mat'er because they gave defendants noties of abandonment and their agents in Manila accepted it although they now said they did not. The only point to settle was whether there had been abandonment or not.
Mr. Morgan Phillips, continning his address, said that the goods shipped consisted chiefly of food-stuffs. While on her voyage from Hong- kong to Manila the Zafiro ran ashore on some place in the Philippine. She was damaged, her Nos. 3 and 4 holds were filled with about 10 feet of water and the goods in these holds were very much damaged. She arrived at Manila on 25th June. Soon afterwards part of the cargo was discharged from these holds and it was found to bo in such a putrid state that 119 packages were damped into the sea. As soon as the plaintiffs' agent heard of the accident to the Zafiro he went to the defendants' and told them that he had certain goods which they had insured on the Zafiro, giving them a sort of formal notice. Subsequently he went to them and asked what was to be done about these goods. He asked them to take over the goods. Defendants' agent, as the evidence would show, said that he would take over the goods-195 packages which were still on the Zafiro and which were subsequently removed" to the Custom House. It took some little time before the goods were lodged in the Custom House. Defendants' agent said he would take these goods over but asked the plaintiffs' representative to sell them ou de- fendants' account, as it was rather out of their line of business to sell goods, and subsequently furnish them with an account. After several
interviews defendants' agent agreed to take over the goods and requested plaintiffs' represen tative to sell them ou defendants' account. This was done. On or about 7th August the goods were taken from the Custom House and sold by the plaintiffs on defendants' account and au account was furnished to the defendants by the plaintiffs. Defendants were asked to chop this account. The agent refused to chop it on one or two occasions, saying he required proof of the loss of the goods. Ultimately he affixed his chop to a document which was aco-pt d as an admission of abandonment.
Mr. Sharp having replied,
His Lordship on the sole issue ง to whether or not, after the arrival of the 8.8. Zafiro at Manila, there was a legal abandon. ment of the subject-matter of the action to the defendants, decided in favour of the defendants who accordingly established thoir contention that there was neither an actual nor constructive total logs. The amount of the partial loss, which the defendants had always admitted liability for, remains to be settled between the parties.
The Court adjourned.
Thursday, 9th July.
IN SUMMARY JurisdictioN.
BEFORE HIS HONOUR A. G. WISE (Puisne JudgY),
DISPUTE ABOUT A DOG.
A case was called in which Pedro N. Sequeira, 31, Elgin Street, claimed from Felix Lorria the return of a brown pointer dog belonging to the plaintiff, or in the alternative $200 damages. Mr. F. X. d'Almada e Castro, solicitor, appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. E. J. Grist of Messrs. Wilkinson and Grist, solicitors, was for the defence.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.