'This was a claim' for rent in arrears, Tls. 120, and an application for the ejectment of the tenant.
The defendant acknowledged the default, and requested the Court to direct a sale of the furniture, &c., on the premises, and to pay the Petitioner therefrom.
The Petitioner consented to allow occupation until the sale could be effected, about the 10th instant.
Aug. 5th. Tur "Maxcuu" Contastox Case.
Before G. F. Sewanp, Esq., Consul-Ceneral and Captains J. 'P. Rosenrs and Law, and Mr. J. K. Tnorsprxe, Associates.
After a long interval, since May 5th, consequent upon the absence of a material wit-alleged t the Into steamer Manchu, of ness from SI the hearing of the case
running down a junk in the Yangtze river, on the night of the 11th December last, was resumed.
Mr. Cooren and Mr. Cowie were for the plaintiffs, Chen-kee-tuk, master and owner of the funk, the Chin-yuen-yuen, of Chinhae, and other Chinese merchants, and a widow and 'a mother of two of the crew of the said funk, Mr. Eases and Mr. Watszwnigur appeared for the owners, and her former master, the late Captain Spedding.
Mr. Eas opened the case on behalf of the Maxch, by saying that this was perhaps, in some of its particulars, one of the most extraordinary cases that ever came before thi Court. - The Manchu came into collision with something; the defendants said it was a small oat, while the plaintifis it to have been with their vessel, a three-masted junk. 'That was one of the questions for the consi deration of the Court; and it would be fo the Court to say whether it was with The junk might have collided with something, plaintiffs' junk that the steamer collided.
but it did not appear that those on board her knew much about the Manchu, or as to the number of lights she carried. He (Mr. Eames) did not know if it was necessary he should quote any law on the subject that it was the uty of a steamer to keep out of the way of refused to answer questions put to hiim—be had even refused to tell his name. They could not cross-examine him, but of course the Court possessed the right to question im, and make im tell all he knew about the occurrence, and. then he could be cross-examined. He was no doubt a well meaning man, but he seemed to think there was something wrong in answering questions. His refusal was very unfortunate, but he hoped the man meant to do what was right. (He Mr. Eames) submitted that the plaintifis had failed most entirely to prove their case, for, according to their own testimony, when they saw the steamer, they changed their course. The owner testified all about the compass, as to the changing of the course, but when a compass was produced before hia, it was found he knew nothing about it. They did, however, change their course four points. The steamer changed her course very little, and one man said as the junk kept away the steamer seemed to be following them. It was admitted that, practically, the junk bad no lights, because one light placed at the mizen masthead was of lite or no use, It might as well be said that a ship carried a light, when she had it in her cabin. What was really meant was that vessels should carry a ight that could be seen, 'This light, by the plsintify' own. showing, could not be seen, What they said they did was to put out a Iantern, for which the order was given, not by the lowdah, but by the owner. That light was exposed too late for the steamer to take any advantage of it.
Mr. Coorer—But one witness said they were two or three Ni distant at the time.
Mr. Eastes—They admitted they changed their course, and in doing so they were, he submitted, wrong. What they ought to have done was to have kept the junk on her course, and the steamer would have got out of her way, It was said she did port her. helm a little, and according to the testimony of Rosey, she was slowed, then stopped, and then put astern at fall speed, and all within few minutes, and he says that he did not feel any shock as though the steamer had struck anything. He (Mr. Eames) submitted that the evidence of the Chinese witnesses was thoroughly valueless. Some of them said the junk sink almost immediately; another said did not see the junk go down, he drifted so far away. he Court would remember the evidence, and he need scarcely repeat it now but there was another witness who said he picked up some of the crew of the junk, and then went back to where they said the junk had sunk, as they said there were others left on board. Why did they want him to go back to the junk, if she had gone down? He thought the testimony of these witnesses was so incredible, that it seemed to bear the mark of pre-arrangement, A number of men came before the Court, and said they knew nothing about the compass, yet they all agreed that their vessel went away four points. That looked very much sailing vessels and for sailing vessels to cep like rearrangement. Then, again, some of on their course. Those were the Admiralty the Chinese witnesses swore that the steamer Regulations, and he had some cases on the did not stop until after the collision. If she point, and would be happy to show them to had not stopped, her force would have cut a the Court. There were, "'Crocket v, Newton junk in two; others said she did stop, (18 How, 581, 583); the Hangchow" (6, Sup. and lay alongside, and that she was not Crt. Gaz, 89, 146); and the Suiconada" (5, entangled with the junk. The testimony Sup. Crt. Gaz. 22.) The doctrine seemed so that the steamer did not stop was too clear that he would not take up the time of to be believed, and such testimony the Court with it. Then came the question should be scrutinized very closely—Chinese as to what happened after the alleged collision. evidence always should be, but especially in The Manchu made several trips to Nagasal this case. They had attempted to do in this and back, and on one of these she was lost, case what they did in that of the Golden Age, to only two or three of the on board her being saved, Not one of these knew any-prove they had alight burning; but they all thing of the collision with the junk. They new what kind of lights Chinese junks carried, if any. As to the duty of their carrying had some witnesses who were on board at lights he would quote the cases of the Vicloria the time of the alleged collision, but these were in her when she was lost. Mr. Eames Charles" (19 How, 108); "Pan Liang Whai (BWV, Rob, 40)5 "Rogers the steamer then reviewed portions of the evidence taken Moyune;" '1 Parsons, 161-92, and note (3.)" on the 5th May, especially referring to that of the chief engiaeor Wilhelm Rosey, and. the The general practice was well known, and he would not ave taken up the time of the second officer, Jacob W. Obissen, both of Court, onl it was so long since the case whom swore that they know nothing what-occurred. One other matter he might mention, ever of a collision between the steamer and a as being very peculiar. The owner of the junk. Rosey said he did not feel any shock, junk said it was customary for steamers and Oblssen said he was below asleep and to keep mid-channel, and for small boats knew nothing about collision until he was to keep inshore in rivers;—then why did he told. The case had been adjourned for some not. keep inshore? According to his own time for the attendance of one witness, the testimony he had no business in mid-channel. chief officer of the Manchu, who was on board He would not detain the Court any longer, at the time of the alleged collision. It was but again referred to the calling of the chiot awkward to place this man on the stand on officer of the late Manchu. behalf of the defendants, because it was not Mr. Coorer enquired if he was a new known what he intended to say, as he had witness
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.