September 4, 1905.1
After other evidence had been adduced, the case was adjourned till Friday to enable defen. dant to make a certified translation of two entries in the books.
CLAIM AND COUNTER CLAIM.
Lam Sew Hi, trading as Kam Lee, claimei $223.61 from Sun Fook Cheung for goods supplied. Defendant set off against the claim. and the case was adjourned till Monday for further hearing.
IN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
BEQUEL TO A COLLISION AT SEA.
The Venetia Steamship Company claimed judgment against Elias Kiser Bernt Larssen and John Schwarten, owners of the 8.8. Proteus, and also a reference to the Registrar to assess the amount of damages resulting from a collision for which plaintiff declares the Proteus was responsible. Captain St. John George, of the Macquarie, sat a.s nautical
assessor,
Mr. Sharp, K.C., acted for plaintiffs and Mr. Pollock, K.C., for defendants. The owners of the Proteus also claimed against the owners of the leneția. but the actions were consolidated.
!
At the outset Mr. Sharp mentioned that two paragraphs, articles 16 and 29 of the regulations for preventing collisions at sea-ad been omitted from the pleadings, and though he did not think they were very important he would like to know if his Lordship thought they should be included.
His Lordship did not consider that any amendment was necessary.
Mr. Sharp read the pleadings which set cut that the collision took place ou the morning of 14th March, 1905, when the Proteus appeared from out of a bank of fog at an excessive speed in the circumstances and struck the Venetia on the s'arboard side.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
collision carried her out of sight astern into the fog. He held that the Venetia had complied with the conditions of good seamanship in the circumstances. The Proteus, on the other hand, failed either to proceed with the cantion required, failed to stop, and failed to comply with the regulations of good seamanship. The Proteus mislocated the Fenetia. She approached at a speed, which under the circumstances, was excessive, and when the officer in command found himself, as it were, on the top of the Venetia he apparently lost his head and made the worst manoeuvre possible in the circum stances. He swung his bow round into the stem of the Venetia. How he canted her head round was not for them to say. The law ou the subject was simple. It was a case under the fog regulations, and the rule was that those regula tions override the articles for general steerin z He would submit that the Proteus was going atan exce-sive speed in the fog and in the proximity of another vessel ahead of her. He would sub. mit that the Proteus ought to have stopped
some time before the collision. The Venetia
stopped and he would prove by her 1g that the Proteus did not stop at all. In the preliminary act defendant stated that the speed of the Proteus at the time of the collision was two and a half kants. He wou'd submit that the Profeus was wrong in changing her course to starboard and so bringing herself to the place of the collision, which she would not have done had she not changed her course. The evidence clearly established the fact that the Venetid was stationary at the time of the collision, and it also clearly established the fact that the great force with which the ships met was entirely due to the weigh of the Proteus. Consequently be would submit that the Proteus was solely to blame.
The evidence of the captain of the Venetia. Charles Fergus Reid; and other officers taken on commission at Calculatta was read. It was of an exceedingly voluminous obaracter, and tended to bear out counsel's opening state- ment. From this is appeared that the Proteus struck the Venetia and went along her side, scraping it. The collision occurred about two and a half minutes after the engines of the Venetia were stopped.
The case was adjourned.
155
Lim to guarantee the rent du to tha landlord of his house. Defendant promised to do so as he was formerly in witness's employ as a foki. He did not ask for any security or make any suggestion with reference to depositing goods.
Mr. Barlow-Yo man to tell us that because he was once your foki he was good enough, out of the kindness of his heart, to guarantee payment of your rent for nothing?
Witness-Yes. He had a kind heart. didn't the landlord make him pay Although If he guaranteed payment of the rent, why he guaranteel, the landlord would not look to
in for payment.
It was only for a matter of a few days. Well, what was the use of his guaranteeing!
D'd you threaten him that if he did not make out a list of the goods he had in
I told him that if he did not. I wol report to his shop, you would prosecute him -No. the police and have him arrested.
*
What did he say -He said "I will give you a list of all the goods I have rem wed."
Mr. Harding--Did the defen lant promise you personally, or did he promise the landlord that he would pay the rent?-Ha promised the landlord.
Mr. Howell. bailiff of the Supreme Court, gave evidence as to the issue of a distress warrant against the plaintiff for three months' rent from the 27th February to 26th May. The goods sold from his shop realised $70.62. There were no books of any description on the promises which were situatel at No. 142 Queen's Road East. When be went to the shop it was locked and he had to get the key
from the landlord.
Tam Sing Woon, dealer in Japanese gonds. stated:-The plaintiff. who is ia- debted to me. called at my shop on the 10th May. I asked him to make a pay- ment on account of his debt, but he said defendant had seized his goods. I told him to bring the defendant along.
When they came I asked defendant if he had taken the plaintiff's goods away. He said he had. I heard the plaintiff ask the defendant why he took more than $1,000 worth of goods, as he only owed defendant's wife $100. At the plain- tiff's request defendant wrote out the list of goods produced. A squabble followed, the plaintiff asking the defendant how it was he made out such a small list.
Mr. Sharp afterwards pres nted the material facts of the case. On the 14th March of this year the Fenetia was on a royage from Hongkong to Japan laden with coal. Iuring the preceding night the vessel had been constantly passing through showers and fog and proceeded throughout the night at various speeds, slowing down whenever there was one of those showers or banks of fog. At 8 a.m. the Venetia altered her course to north east three quarter east. This was importaut in view of the fact that the Venetia continuel upon this course up to the time of the collision. At 9 o'clock the BEFORE SIR F. T. PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE). threaten to take defendant to the Police Station
position of the Venetia was somewhere about 23 miles south east of Good Hope Cape. A that time she was going full speed with a low head of steam, and ou the bridge was the cptain and third officer, with the quarter master on the look-out. According to the log book the Venetia entered a slight fog at 9.4 8.10. and her engines were put half-speed, which was estimated by the engineer to be about five knots an hour.
The l'enetia then began to sound her fog signal, the signal for a steamer under weigh. which was a very long blast every two minutes. Shortly afterwards the captain of the l'enetia heard head the whistle of another ship which ultimately profed to be the Norwegian steamer Proteus, which was on a voyage from Japan to Hongkong. The l'enetia's engines were put s'ow about one and a half knots, and thereafter she proceeded with cantion. At 9-14, when the for became di nger and the whistle of the other ship continued to approach, the Venetia's engines were reversed for a few revolutions, and she sounded the signal for a steamer which wás stationary-two prolonged blasts As the Venetia wasthus stationary the Proteus suddenly appe`r. ed about one and a half points on the Fenetia's starboard, close to the Venetia. "two or three lengths, and approaching rapidly-rapidly in view of the circumstances - at a speed of some- thing like four or five knots and upon a course nearly prallel to the Venetia's. She would have passed clear but the Protes swung her head to starboard and she ran with her st m pretty well forward into the side of the le elia. That very likely was due to her reversed eng.us, but they were not prepared to say. She bumped into the Venetia more than once and it
WIR
s id the Venetia's anchors struck the Proteus. At the moment, the Fenetia was slationary but still heading north sast three quarter east, and the momentum of the
Thursday, 31st August.
IN ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.
SETTLED OUT OF COURT.
In cross-examination-The plaintiff did not
if he refused to sign the list, and defendant did not refuse to sign. I have not received the amount owing to me. I was in the plaintiff's shop before the 6th May, and saw goods there which I would value at $1,00) or over.
Mr. Barlow stitel that his defence was that
When the action in which the owners of the 9.8. Venetia claimed damages from the owners of the s.s. Proteus for damage as the result of collision at sea was mentioned this morning. Mr. E. H. Sharp, K.C., who appeared for plinthe only goods which defendant ever had from tiffs, said that since the adjournment the parties had met and had agreed to settle the action ont of court, on the ground that both ships were to blame, with the usual consequence that there would be a reference to the registrar and merchants.
His Lordship-Each party to pay their own
costs?
Mr. Sharp-Yes. There will be a reference as to the amount of damage to the registrar, assist d by merchants.
Judgment was entered accordingly.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
the plaintiff were two sewing machines which were deposited as security on account of rent paid by the defendat for the plaintiff.
Chu Kwai was the first witness for the defence. He stated that he was formerly one of the fokis of the plaintiff. On the night of the 1th May, plaintiff knocked at witness's door to tell him the landlord was watching his pre- mises. He asked witness to guarantee his rent, saying that if he refused the landlord would distrain the premises. Witness said—” You owe my wife $100 and now you come and ask me to guarantee your rent. In case of your
business failing what am I to do." He said- "In that case I will band over two machines as
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE). security." Witness then agreed to guarantee
LAC SHI UT SANG 1. NG WING IU.
This was a claim for $119 02 for money lent and interest thereon.
Mr. Barlow (of Mr. Holmes office) appeared: for the plaintiff. and Mr. R. Harding (of Messrs. Ewens, Hars on and Harding, repra. sented the defendant
After hearing the evilena His Honour gave judgment for the amouut e'aimed and costs.
NG YEW F CHU.KWAI.
The de'eudant in the former action figured as plaintiff in this, and the plaintiff as defendant. The claim was for $1,000 for trespass to the goods of the plaintiff.
Mr. Harding represented the plaintiff, and Mr. Holmes the defendant.
Ng Yew declare that defendant called at his shop on the 6th May when he asked
t
an
the rent, and eventually paid it for two months, amount of $72. Plaintiff deposited the machines with witness, who gave a receipt for them. Witness did not go with eight coulies and remove some goods from the plaintiff's The document produced (the list of shop. goods) was not in his writing.
Mr. Barlow Two witnesses have sworn it is. His Honour---You hal better be careful. Witness-I was forced to write a promissory note for $80 by the plaintiff.
+
His Honour-I ›hould like to hear abɔut this promissory note.
Witness-Although he forced me to write it I did not write it.
His Honour-What do you mean by telling What else did he force you to me you did? write?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.