Master 8. Parkhill that... Ishould not confurm to the local By ies the fact that take out a once proceeds to defy the local authorities, Then he goes on to state that he was subsequently informed by the Harbour Master that unless he reported himself at the Harbour Master's office when he brought he (the Harbour Master) would him by stopping his work. The after other calls finally a notice was sent which is the libel complained of, and which is embodied in the affidavit. '[t is to the effect that "Mr. H. J, Robertson having been di missed from the Chivere pilotage service, and this dismissal ug received my hat tion, I cannot consider Mr. Robertson cor-sed pilot."
that is announced again in the noti-oont by Mr. Hurst to the Captain which he says—"IT beg to enclose certified copy of a notification received from H.M.'s Consul at Foochow, and trust that under the el ems to me that they "re a simple and accurate statement of fac shown and admitted by the applicant Himself.
How, then, Lan be induced to trext th tlemen, the Consul and Vieo-C 8 par with a magistrate who cornu acts from corrupt motly applic ing out the Chinese pilotage service, to obey the rules service, and having set the authorities at detance—not only the Chinese xuthorities, but, I apprehend, from what he has himself stated, Her Majesty' Consul as well. It is not fur me at this period to enter into the question of when ati is mame to these Bye-law ther the Conaul was right or wrong
not been put in or proved, the applicant, in his affidavit, has not raised the question of their validity or otherwise; Ido not know how they have been pasted or altered, and Iam bound to presume in the first instance that the Gonsul has properly sanctioned them. I know that the B.D. ter at Peking, under powers vested in him, has sanctioned certain general pilotage regulation in China, which have moreover received the sanction of Her Mnjesty by an Order i which she has made, confirming these amonget other regulations. 1 has reason to believe that they have the force of El law, avd I cannot at the moment see that anything has been done wrongfully by the Consul in regard to this matter, It may be that these bye-awa are not in all respect valid, and law. ' That question which I cxnnet into; but itis clear to mo on the facts before me that the applicant is not entitled to the rule nisi for which he aske, and that no case whatever of ce xy or has been made out in regard to ject matter of the application.
io Applicaut—Then you refuse to grant nny protection or redress His Lonpsair—I dismiss your motion, Mr. Robertson, The Applicant—Well, didn't hear half what you said, 20 I suppose I must put it down by guess-work.
29th October.
Os Arrzat raow H.B.M.'s Count rox Japa:
Before Sir R. 1. Rennre, Chief Justice, and Gzonaz Jamieson, Esq., Acting Assistant Judge, Tanaxa Lonrnosaxe and others, (pla tiffs and respondents), and KO, Witrraub, (defendant and appellant) and cross appeal.
This case which had been at hearing on the 19ch and 22ud instant came up for judgment on apponl. Mr. Watnewu red for appellant, not represented by ey His Louvsaup in giving judgment In this case @ suit was instituted in the Court below by the plaintiffs as owners of certain stentor called the Kokwe Sun Mas againat the defendant as mortgagee.
defendant by his auawer put in the plaintiffs' title us owners and denied debtedness to them, Court below held that the defendant was the pre' udgmont in the same parties from denying the plainti owueraliip, decreed an account, and on the taking of that account ordered che defendant to pay to the plaintilfa the sum of $2,760.22 with certain costs, Krom that final decree the defendant has appealed to this Court, and there is also @ cross appeal by the plaintiffs againat the allowance to the of certain disputed items. We th the defendant's appeal. jed with judgment on the following grounda—tst, that the learned judge is in error in deciding that the de-fondant was estopped from denying that the ownership of the said steamer was in the ph 3, 2nd the learned judge was in error in deciding that Shigehama Katsunari was the agent of the plaintifis in mortgaging the said steamer to the defendant and therefore was not the hi of th said steamer; 3rd, that the rul the learned judge that the sxi not the bailor of the ateamer, to the evidence produced before the said Court; 4th, that the learned judge was in error in disallowing the def Uontcostsofeuit, and intaking theacconnt as between mortgagor and mortgagee; Oth i the account—the learned judge w: wrong in dissllowing the defendant costs as between attorney and client in the actions of Tanaka and Yamamoto v. Whittall in the 10 appeal Counsel very properly ad-the utmost he could hope for, did he convince us that the judgment of the lower Court was erroneous on the ground of estoppel, was that the case should be remitted to the Court below for " new trial, We accordingly dealt with this application for a now trial, in the first iatance. The appellant's counsel urged on th th was really no estoppel against th 4 dant by reason of the judgment in the firat suit, because learned judge's decision in that suit wax mainly founded upon the then plaintifis having, whether owners of the easel, of not, given their consent to bee
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.