The-Hong-Kong-Weekly-Press-1909-08-30 — Page 16

188

And all you can say is they are like the people they represent?-They are the people they represent.

They resemble them ?-There is no question about that.

→

Captain N. G. Major, sworn, said he was a master mariner, and in charge of the steam tug David Gillies. He knew Captain and Mr Mitchell, and also Mr. John Lemm, whose photograph he recognised. In May, 1900, witness was living at 3, Granville Avenue, Captain and Mrs. Mitchell lived at No. 4, while Mr. Lemm was then living at the end house of the terrace. All the houses in the avenue had balconies, and witness used to see Lemm going to his house almost daily.

From May to September, 1900, did anything attract your attention as Lemm was going along the Avenue?-He always whistled when pass- ing Mrs. Mitchell's house.

What was the result of the whistle?-Mrs. Mitchell used to answer him.

Did

you see Mrs. Mitchell-No, but I heard the whistle.

Sir Henry Berkeley-I will take it this way. He heard an answering whistle.

Witness stated that Mr. Lemm used to go into Mrs. Mitchell's house nearly every evening. At times he came out between ten and eleven p.m., while at other times witness did not remember him leaving a all.

His Lordship-You don't mear to represent that you were sitting on your veradah to watch Mr. Lemm? I may have done it out of curiosity.

Why out of curiosity? I thought it was a thing to arouse anyone's curiosity.

Sir Heary Berkeley-How many occasions have you sat on the verandah ?-Pretty often. I could not say the number.

Do you remember being on board the Prinz Sigismund on June 21st, 1907?—I took the ship out, but I am not prepared to swear to the date.

Was Mrs. Mitchell on board?--Yes, she was going to

ustralia.

Mr. Slade To what portion of the par- ticulars does this refer?

Sir Henry Berkeley This is after the decree. What I am submitting is this: that for the purpose of showing continued familiarity evidence can be given even after the decree.

Mr. Slade My friend has had his way now. He has put it to the jury and that is all

he wanted.

Sir Henry Berkeley-My friend should not make a suggestion like that.

is Lordship-I will put everything straight to the jury.

he

Cross-examined by Mr. lade, witness said

THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND

Witness--Please ask the gentleman not to look at me as if he is going to swallow me.

His Lordship-You can look at him as if you were going to swallow him.

Witness---I don't want him to look at me as if I'm telling lies.

Mr. Slade-You certainly did see Mr. Deacon All right. We'll say I did. You did not mention any of these facts to him, did you?-Which facts do you mean?

is Lordship-The facts you have told us about sitting on your verandah.

Witness - No. As I say, I was not asked. Mr. Slade-But you were asked to tell all you knew? 11 right.

And you did not mention any of these facts? -I believe I was asked.

Will you answer the question. please? Let me answer in my own way.

Answer the question first, and you can ex- plain afterwards I offered to state these facts, but I think it was decided that they were not worth taking down.

Pau Kam Tak deposed to being cook and boy to Mrs. Mitchell at Erani Bungalow, Observatory Road, in 1905. Mr. Lemm was often at her house. He usually called at 7 p.m. and stayed until two and three a.m. There were two sleeping rooms in the house, one Mrs. Mitchell's and the other for Mr. Lemm, in which there was a bed which was not much used. At that timer Lemm lived at 7, Cameron Road.

Did Mr. Lemm ever use this bed in his room to your knowledge?—Yes, and I used to go to his house for sleeping garments.

Continuing, the witness said that when Mr. Lemm got into his pyjamas he went into his own room, but he took his liquors in "the Mrs. room." Mrs. Mitchell was then dressed in a

long sleeping dress.

In

cross-examination witness stated that there were two sleeping rooms in the house, and Mrs. Mitchell slept in the same room as Miss Mitchell, and in the same bed.

Mr. F. 1. Marques, manager of the Boa Vista Hotel, acao, was shown photographs of

Vir. Lemm and Mrs. and Miss Mitchell, which he said he recognised, and stated that the gentleman and the two ladies visited his hotel on October 12th, 1904 They stayed the night, and left on the following day. The names were entered in the hotel register, which he produced. They occupied rooms 9 and 10, and it was possible to pass from one of these rooms to the other by means of the verandah. Mr. Lemm paid the hotel expenses. The same parties paid a second visit to the hotel in December, and occupied rooms 8 and 9.

Witness was cross-examined by Mr. Slade. Were the entries in your register altered since they were written ?I cannot say when the alteration took place. When I saw the entry it was in the same state as it is now.

Do you remember a half-caste of the name of Ledbury who was in the employ of Captain Mitchell ? I am not certain, but I believe I have seen him in Court.

knew that Captain Mitchell took proceedings against his wife for adultery in 1905. He was called to give evidence on com- mission, and on that occasion he mentioned some of the facts he had now sworn to. He remembered being shown a photograph and asked who it was, and he replied Lemm. When asked if he knew anything about Lemm, he said nothing more than that he was a fre- quent visitor at Mrs. Mitchell's house. Thatcular pages after they were cut out of the was because he was not asked.

How many hours were you cross-examined ?- Only a few minutes.

Minutes Please don't look black at me. I am telling all I know as far as I can remem- ber. I was a very short time under cross- examination.

Your examination in chief took sometime? About half an hour.

You are a friend of Captain Mitchell's, aren't you?-I am a captain myself.

It's a curious thing that in 1905 you never gave any of the details at all which you have given now? I was not asked.

Before you gave your evidence in chief you had seen Mr. Deacon, who was acting for Captain Mitchell? In the

supposé.

usual way, · I

That is

And he had taken your proof? usual, is it not?

Did he take it? I suppose so. I am not

sure,

And he was asking you all you knew about the matter I have come here to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. His Lordship instructed the witness to

answer,

Do you remember him visiting you to inquire about this matter?-I don't remember.

Was it not to him that you gave these parti-

register P-No, I handed them to a clerk of Messrs. Deacon, Looker and Deacon,,

Continuing, witness said that there were two separate accounts in the names of Lemm and Mitchell, but there was nothing to show by the books who paid, although he knew that Mr. Lemm paid.

Mr. P. A. Pereira, assistant manager of the same hotel, gave corroborative evidence, and the case was adjourned sine die.

Wednesday, August 25th.

IN ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.

BEFOE HIS HONOUR SIR FRANCIS PIGGOTT (CHIEF JUSTICE).

INSURANCE CLAIM FOR OIL.

The Tung San Wo firm of Shanghai claimed from the Po On Marine Insurance and Godown Company. Limited, of Wing Lok, Street, the sum of 7.000 taels said to be due on 35" packages of ground nut oil.

Mr. M. W. Slade, instructed by Mr. R. A. Harding, appeared for the plaintiffs, while the defendants were represented by Sir Henry

|

(August 30, 1909.

Berkeley, K. C., and Mr. D. McNeill, who were instructed by Mr. A. Holborow (of Messrs. Deacon, Looker, and Deacon).

The statement of claim set forth that the plaintiffs were the owners of 350 packages of ground nut oil valued at Tls. 7,000, equal to $9,722.22, which were shipped by the steamer Shao Haing from Shanghai to Canton, and were insured against total loss by perila of the sea, including risk of craft, until safely landed by the defendant Co., under a policy of insurance dated 17th July, 1908. Before being landed from a cargo boat the oil was totally lost in the typhoon of 27th and 28th July last year. Plaintiffs paid the premium the policy, duly notified the demanded ou defendant company of the loss, and claimed the value thereof, and interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum until payment of judgment.

In the statement of defence the defendants admitted the allegations in the statement of claim, but pleaded that the loss of the oil happened after the expiration of a reasonable and ordinary, period from the time it had been placed on the cargo boat for the purpose of Defendants further contended that landing. the oil was not lost by any of the perils during the continuance of any of the risks covered by the policy.

In an amendment to the statement of defence defendants denied certain allegations contained in the statement of claim, and pleaded that the oil referred to in the latter was discharged from the steamer Shao Hring and safely landed at Canton.

In their reply plaintiffs joined issue. They denied that the oil was safely landed in Canton according to the custom of the port, or to the customary meaning given by marine insurers to the words "safely landed" in policies of marine insurance.

Mr. Slade, in opening, informed the Court that the facts in the case were comparatively simple. The oil in question was shipped by one of Messrs. Butterfield and Swire's steamers, the Shao Hsing, to Canton. The steamer was made fast to Messrs. I utterfield and Swire's pier on Honan Island, a "T" shaped structure, and there discharged her cargo. The oil in question was native oil, and was packed in baskets lined with oil paper. As a cargo it was liable to leak, because the baskets in which it was packed were somewhat fragile. As Messrs. utterfield and Swire refused to store oil in their godown, the con- signees had to take delivery in cargo boats and store it in one of the only two godowns in the whole port of Canton which would then receive such oil. The process of landing oil was slight- ly complicated through the necessity of weighing it out of the ship. Oil was weighed before it was put into cargo boats as a check upon the cargo boatmen, who had to deliver the same quantity of oil as they received. The safe land- ing which the defendants alleged took place in Canton was the temporary deposit of this oil on the wharf on its way from the ship to the cargo boat.

His Lordship-Who pays the wharf charges? Mr. Slade The ship. It is all included in the freight.

Proceeding, Mr. Slade said the defendants' first line of defence was that they declined to pay the claim because the cases had been safely landed. The next defence was that of delay. They alleged that there was undue delay, and that the cargo was kept in the cargo boat for an unreasonable time. The Shao Hsing went alongside the pier on July 23rd, and finished discharging her cargo about midday on the 24th.

Mr. Slade here explained the methods adopted by the Imperial Maritime Customs regarding the landing of dutiable cargo, and remarked that this oil had been passed and was ready for landing on the afternoon of July 25th. A cargo boatman then took it on his boat and went further up the river in the direction of Canton to the Tung Yuen godown, where space had been reserved for

the it. When boatman arrived at this godown he found number of: other boats laden with oil from other steamers still anchored in front thereof waiting to discharge, and quickness in discharging depended entirely on the staff of the godown. The landing of oil was a very slow business, and the godown's coolie staff was apparently small for the amount of work which had to be done in busy times. In

8

#