Page
January 8, 1906.
SUPREME COURT.
Tuesday, 2nd January.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
Deacon), represented defendants, while Mr. T. L. Gibbs, Mr. T. F. Hough, and Mr. C. H. Grace sat as a special jury.
In their pleadings plaintiffs set forth that on 30th or 31st August the submarine cable belonging to them, situated in the area reserved for submarine cables between Kowloon and
BEFORE MR. A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE), North Point within which area vessels were
3
SETTLED.
In the case of Chin Hok Chau v. B. Pinto, Mr. Hett, who appeared for plaintiff, said notice of a special defence had been filed. An arrangement had since been come to between the parties by which judgment should be for plaintiff, the amount due to be paid by instal- ments of $5 a month, and the defendant to have his agreed costs. Mr. J. Grist, for defendant, consented. Judgment was entered accordingly.
AJ. CHOTERMALL AND CO. v. H.
HOTICHAND.
Mr. Gardiner, from the office of Mr. O. D. Thomson, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. F. P. Hett, for defendant.
Mr. Hett stated that the case had been adjourned to enable the plaintiff to furnish defendant with particulars, but he had not done so, and the action should be struck out.
Mr. Gardiner said the particulars were not yet to hand. Plaintiff had sent to Yokohama for them.
His Lordship asked if there were any prospect of settlement in the event of the particulars coming to hand.
Mr. Hett said he did not think so, unless the vouchers also came down,
His Lordship said he did not want to strike the case out and he would put it on the list for Friday,
NON-SUITED,
-Rochakam sued H. Hotichand for $65, being money lent by the firm, of which plaintiff was a partner, to defendant. Mr. Gardiner appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Hett for defendant.
Plaintiff said the money was lent by the Shanghai branch of the firm to defendant, but under cross examination admitted he did not see the money handed over to defendant, the loan being made by his brother at Shanghai.
Bis Lordship-I am inclined to think the action is wrongly brought.
Mr Hett--Yes, a partner cannot sue for a partner.
Defendant stated he had received the money, but had repaid it to plaintiff's brother.
His Lordship said the action could not succeed in the form in which it was brought Judgment would be for defendant with costs.
Á BANKRUPT'S CLAIM.
Lau Hok Chow sued the Shanghai Life Insurance Co. for $39.94. Mr. C. F. Dixon represented plaintiff, and Mr. Hett defendants
Mr. Hett said his Lordship would recollect that in this case the plaintiff was an undis- charged bankrupt, And Mr. Dixon had been given a week to consider the point.
His Lordship-Yes, he cannot sue in his own
name.
Mr. Dixon-I submit in this case the claim being for personal earnings, my client, who is a bankrupt, is in a position to sue.
|
His Lordship-He cannot sue, He has no status at all. He is a sort of flotsam and jetsam. Mr. Dixon-I take it no order can be made against him for costs.
His Lordship He is non-suited. He can go
to the Official Receiver if he likes.
Mr. Hett-I have seen the Official Receiver, and if there is anything due it will be paid to
him.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
Wednesday, 3rd January.
BEFORE MR A. G. WISE (PUISNE JUDGE).
BREAKING A SUBMARINE CABLE.
prohibited from anchoring under the regulations of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance-WAS injured and broken by reason of the Rubi anchoring within such area through the negligence of defendants' servants. Plaintiffs consequently suffered damage to the amount of $1038.34 but restricted their claim to $1,000 to bring it within the Summary Jurisdiction.
Defendants, in their pleadings, denied that plaintiffs' submarine cable was situated within the alleged area and denied that the cable was either injured or broken by their steamship Rubi. They further denied that the Rubi was at anchor within the said area, and, in the alternative, said that if the Rubi was at anchor within the said area and if the cable was thereby injured or rokon as alleged, they denied negligence on the part of their servants, and by way of further answer said as follows: The Rubi was proceeding on 30th August to the typhoon anchorage in Kowloon Bay and encountered a sudden and violent squall of wind which was accompanied by extraordinary dense and blinding rain, which rendered it impossible to continue with safety the navigation of the ship and made it imperatively necessary for the Rubi to drop her anchor.
The China and Japan Electric and Telephone Co., Ltd., brought an action against the China and Manila Steamship Co., Ltd., for $1,000, damages for breaking plaintiffs' submarine cable by one of defendant's steamships.
The plaintiffs further replied that having regard to the prevailing condition of the weather the v ssel should not have been in the position she was. She ought not to have taken the course, referred to, and that in doing so she acted on her own risk. The Rubi was at fault in anchoring were she did
Mr. E. H. Sharp, K. C. (instructed by Mr. H. G. Bailey), appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K. C. (instructed by Mr. F. B.
A
was almost at its height, and it was apparently with great difficulty that she got under weigh at all. Starting at 11.45, the Rubi had two minutes later her engines going at full speed, but it took her to 12.30 to get as far as the cable reserve, where she anchored under circumstances they would her. Plaintiffs would prove that the Rubi ought not to have put herself in the position she did. She ought not to have delayed so long, and she ought not to have ventured on her insufficient power without the aid of a tug. In those circumstances if she had been over. borne by the wind and driven into some other ship, he should submit that she was blame. The typhoon could entirely to not be called a typhoon, although it was a serious blow. On the following morning the Rubi raised her anchor and the plaintif cable came up with it. The Rubi then went to Stonecutter's, where she anchored. Plaintiffs did not learn of the damage to their cable until later in the day. when they had it examined and found it broken a third of the distance from the Counsel then quoted from south end. Ordinances showing that those injuring the cable were liable to a fine and to make good the damage. In concla-ion, he pointed out that the matter was important to the public as well as to the plaintiffs. It was obviously necessary that communications should be maintained with the mainland, and having heard the evidence the jury would have no doubt that the damage was due to the Rubi's omission to take such precautions. aud to exercise such foresight as were reason- able and proper in view of the weather, in view of the warnings, and in view of the Rubi's own partially disabled condition.
|
Evidence was adduced in support of plaintiffs' claim, which was not concluded when the Court rose. (Se next page.)
Mr. Sharp outlined the case for plaintiffs. Ou the 29th August last the Rubi was lying at the Kowloon Dock, having her annual overhaul. At that time she was naturally without steam. Her boilers were empty and she was lying helpless. They would, of course, recollect that that was the height of the typhoon season, and up to that time the barometer had been con- stantly falling for three or four days. typhoon potice had been issued by the Observa- tory on the two previous days, and al 7 30 dn the night of the 20th the red drum was hoisted ou the Tumar and other places. The log of the Rubi showed that it was observed at 10 o'clock. Later, the observatory issued a notice that the typhoon would visit the colony within twenty-four hours, and after that steamers began leaving their moorings for Stonecutter's and Kowloon Bay. Notwithstanding all this, at three o'clock in the afternoon, the Rubi sent for the Robert Cook, the most powerful tng in the harbour, and was towed, not as they might expect to a safe anchorage, but to her buoy on the Hongkong side. The barometer was still falling, and, as it appeared in the log book, at 5.50 in the afternoon the black drum was hoisted. Although the Rubi had at that time no steam, she did not signal to the Robert Cook to come and take her to a safe anchorage. The typhoon gun was fired at exactly 9.40 that night, and during the night the barometer continued to fall. Hitherto they had only barometrical warnings, signals, and notices issued by the observatory, but now the wind began to rise very seriously and at daybreak "the ships continued to leave their moorings for a safe anchorage. Yet, despite all these warnings, the Rubi did not signal for the Robert Cook, which was lying with steam up, as her duty was to tow vessels to a safe anchorage. At eight black cone o'clock in the morning the and drum were hoisted. Meanwhile the wind was increasing in force, and two of the few to now towed remaining steamers safety, but the Rubi did not signal for the tugboat. As appeared from the log book, work was being done that morning on her starboard main boiler, and at 11.45 a.m., when practically all the other vessels had gone, the Rubi at last cast off and attempted to proceed the apparently to Kowloon Bay without aid of a tug and under her own steam. At that time she had only one of her two boilers in use, and he would prove to them that she could not get more than, if as much as, half of her normal power out of one boiler. The typhoon then,
were
IN BANKRUPTCY.
BEFORE SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).
THE VALUE OF A SIGNBOARD.
lard
Re Wing Chau Wai Kee firm ex parte Lam Hang Chun. Mr. d'Almada e Castro (of Messrs Bratton, Hett and Goldring) appeared for the petitioning creditors, The petition,
that the firm carried on he said, slated business at 22 Circular Pathway as dealers They owed $500 due on two promissory notes, the act of bankruptcy being a notice of suspension of payment of debts issued by the firm. An interim receiving order was made on the application of the creditor and granted on the ground that some of the oreditors had entered the premises and started removing the gools of the debtors.
His Lordship (referring to the petition)— What does good-will mean?
A r. d'Almada-The signboard and name. His Lordship -A signboard is not worth much.
Mr. d'Almada - The Chinese value it. One signboard was recently sold for $50,000. - -
His Lordsh P- Is it an emblem of good-will P Mr. d'Almada-There was another sold for $27,000;
The application was granted.
CHUN LA MING ex parte LAM SHUN MAN. Mr. K. Holmes, appearing for the petition- ing creditor, said an arrangement had been made with the creditors, by which his client's claim had been secured and he now wished to withdraw his application.
His Lordship-Tell us something about the arrangement.
Mr. Holmes-I am not in a position to do so, my Lord.
His Lordship-That is, not sufficient to with- draw it,
Mr. Dixon-I appear for one of the creditors and was not aware of this arrangement. I am sure my client would not agree to this arrange-- ment. Would your Lordship allow it to stand over?
His Lordship Yes. Directly you come into bankruptcy you must take your chance.
Mr. Holmes-I may say that I have seen a list signed by the Chinese creditors.
His Lordship-It must stand over. The other creditors must have an opportunity of appearing
•
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.