After due consideration of the evidence, the Court is of opinion that the cause of the loss of the steamship Canton on the Min Reef, on the 7th July, 1874, was solely owing to the t carelessness of the Pilot, Frederick johnson, who. was in charge of her when she was wrecked, and who, after running in the outer way didn't take even the most necessary precaution to ensure his pesing ab safe distance outside the Min Reef.
In support of the claim for the junk, viz: We are also of opinion that the conduct of the Taels 10,235.75, not a single document has Pilot, Frederick Johnson, in this particular, is been produced to show the age and most blameworthy, and without any extenuat cost of the junk, and the most contradictory ing causes whatever in his favor, for the evidence has been heard referring to her weather was always clear enough to admit of marketable value at the time of the collision, his taking bearings that would have enabled We have, therefore, been compelled to consider as greatly exaggerated the claim of certainty, which would further have enabled him to fix the ship's position with positive 10,235.75 made by the owner of the j him to have steered a course that would have and, after inspecting her, we have decided to fix taken him clear of all known danger. The Court considers that the conduct of The value of the junk at time of the collision 3,000.00 James McNabb, Master of the late steamship Deducting. from this amount the Canton, in the matter of the wreck of the saic Aisposed of separately. ors?
luo of mast and gear vessel, is quite free from blame.
'The Court notices, however, the fact of the Baking loss to Master leaving the' bridge (being relieved by collision. the second officer) which lo did with the vessel steering East, which course she could have ately gone on for half an hour, ample time In support of the claim for the cargo, viz. for the Master to have been back again on Taels 3,175.05, no other document is produced the bridge. but a sort of manifest without official stamp, The Court further notices that the ship was stating the cargo transferred to the junk, with in charge of a Pilot, well-known to the other items of expenditure.
Master, and one who had safely taken the Referring to the evidence given as to the vessel fo aoa before on n previous voyage, and circumstances of the collision, it appears to us that he was one on whom he thought he that, as the junk was struck by the steamer could fully rely. at nearly high water, and as she was immedi-of all blame in the loss of the Canton and "The Court therefore acyuits the Master ately beached, very little of the. cargo could have been lost. No document is pro: duced referring to the disposal of the cargo socctingly hands back to him is certificate of competency. after the collision; the evidence shews that part of it was sold to the country people on the spot; part taken in boats and removed to Shanghai; and, finally, part of it may have been washed away and lost.
Having therefore to base our decision on
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.