The writ dated January 4, 1908 stated:—The plaintiff as His Britannic Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai claims to have the ship or vessel Maori King registered a British ship in the Register kept for the registration of British ships at His Britannic Majesty's Consulate General at Shanghai as No. 96689 (No. 10 of 1906), condemned as forfeited to His Majesty for violation of sub-section 2 of Section 51 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1906 and in accordance with the 76th Section of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 and 58 Vic. ¢ 60).
On a second writ dated January 6, 1908 it was stated The plaintiff as His Britannic Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai claims to have the ship or vessel known as the Maori King registered as" British ship in the Register kept for the registration of British ships at His Britannic Majesty's Consulate-General at Shanghai as No. 96689 (No 10 of 1906), condemned as forfeited to His Majesty for violation of the 69 Section, sub-section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 (57 and 58 Vic. ¢ 60).
Mr. H. P. Wilkinson said that he appeared in this case as Crown Advocate counsel for the plaintiff in his capacity of Consul-General. Counsel understood from Mr. Ellis that he was appearing on behalf of the owners or others interested in the ship, and counsel did not know why Mr. Ellis was not present, is Lordship—The defendants do not appear at present.
Mr. Wilkinson—He may have mistaken the time. is Lordship intimated that he would proceed.
The Crown Advocate said that there were two writ ned.
His Lordship asked if this case was to be tried without pleadings.
Mr. Wilkinson said that on the writs and on the affidavit of Mr. Rose, he would ask that the trial should proceed without pleadings.
His Lordship remarked that there was no reason under the rule for having pleadings.
Mr. Wilkinson said that he had understood that the point might. arise. Under Section 100 of the China and Corea Order in Council the Supreme court had Admiralty jurisdiction. Then there was Article 5 which gave jurisdiction and stated to what it extended.
His Lordship said that he had no doubt as to his jurisdiction, unless this point was raised by the other side.
Mr. Wilkinson explained the writs and read the sections of the Merchant Shipping Act referred to.
Lordship reverted to the question of pleadings saying that this was a matter of considerable portance' and, therefore, everything should be in order.
Mr. Wilkinson said that he had followed the leading case of the steamer Annandale (Aspivall's Maritime Law Cases, 1877). In that case they wished to put in the defence that the vessel after the commission of the alleged offence, and before the institution of proceedings, had been sold bond fide to foreigners, but that was not allowed as 'a defence.
Mr. Wilkinson then read an affix davit by Mr. Archibald Rose, British
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.