In the case of Tsang Yin v. Benz, in which Mr. RG. MeDonaid eared for the defence and Mr.
Char for the plaintiffs, a ruling was delivered by Judge Sir Peter Grain on Thursday morning in H. M, Supreme Court on an application intift. Judge Grain said:—is_an_ application by the plainti® to strike out of the flfondant's statement of defence the "get off" pleaded in paragraphs 5, 12 and 13 of the defence.
In paragraph 6 the defendant) pleads a maritime lien as a set off against the claim, and in paragraph) 12 and 1% ho pleads as a "set off wages due to himself and disbursements made on behalf of the piaintits, the owners of the ate. trouble. Witness then went on to ocoased was sitting, Nogi Sath was inge by his own bunk near the lockers, Ah went to his locker to get A cup and as he was stooping down, his locker being a lower one, Macko saw Nogi Sath stab him in the back. Nogi Sath stabbed him again andi Alli then rushed out on deck, Macko seized Nogi Sath by his left hand in which he held a sheath, and in his right right hand was the knife When Ah was gone Macko released the accused and went away to hi work.
Tsmai Doobah declared that he had twice seen the sheath before There Was some conflicting evidence from this witness as to the position of another man present at, the time, Farri Hilmar, as to whether the! bathroom in which he was had door, or not, and whether Farri could have seen what took place.
Adam Barrah, a fireman also. was in the forecastle when the stabbing: took place and gave similar evidence to that of the two previous witnesses.
Mr. Mossop then asked that he might uso the evidence given in the lower court by the chief ongineer of the steamer, Mfr. Lennox; Chapman, who had sailed on April 14, with the Baron Kinnaird, a8 ho! Was indispensible to the ship. Mr. Wing objected on the grounds that hho had had no opportunity of cross. examining this witness, The objection being sustained, the evidence: already given concluded the case for the prosecution and Mr. Wing called rhe accused, The. accused's story was that he hail frequently had trouble with tke A Shipmaster's Lien is no doubt that the master of a ship has a Tien on the ship for wages and for disbursements proerly, made by him'on account of the hip by virtue of his general employment. A maritime a claim or privilege ime "res" that is in this case the ship, to be carried into effect by legal process.
In this case the str. Haitan is a registered Chinese claim or pri be carried into effect by legal process as the Court has no juri over the ship in question.
But the! plaintiffs have deposited bail for the ship in this Court. And the effe>t of giving bail for a ship releases the ship and the bail is a substitute for the ship. (The Balamazoo, 15 Jurist 885; The Wild Ranger 1863- 65 Browning Lushington Admiralty, Reports). But the chief question to be answered in this application ig whether the defendant has any right to plead a "set off" and lien in his statement of defence, Cross-Action or Counter Claim The plaintiffs urge that under the China Order-in-Council, 1925. Article 205 (3) the defendant has no such right. Under the Order-in-Council 1904 Art. 151 (3) eross-action or Counter claim shall not be brought in the Court against plaintiff being a foreigner."
But this article is superseded by Article 205 (3) of Order-in-Council 1025, and now reads:—"Unless such consent is obtained and filed aa aforesaid, a cross-action or counter} claim: shall not be brought in the!
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.