The plaintiff's case is one not easy to break down: it is simply the assertion that she was at anchor where she had been for some 12 hours: that she never did get under way and that she had no need to, as she could not get over the bar at that time, following the rule of the port. That she did nothing to avoid the collision because she could not. Her logs bear that out and her witnesses—the Captain and the two officers—agree upon it. One very material point was never put to them in cross-examination and I cannot help suspecting that it came as a surprise to everyone in Court including the defendant's legal representative to hear it suggested that the Nancy Moller originally passed the Cheng Lee on her port side—a suggestion not contained i" the Preliminary Ast, and not alleged in the pleadings but one to my mind very mater: in this case. The absence of this allegation very considerably affects my mind in the conclusion at which I have arrived.
In addition the plaintiff's case is supported by the evidence of the captains of two other ships there that night, the Tong Lee and the Rokkasan Maru. Both men speak definitely to the fact that the Cheng Lee was in the same position after the collision as she was before. And the latter witness was confident that the Nancy Moller never went between the Tong Lee and the Cheng Lee: i.e., never passed the Cheng Lee on her portside, as alleged by the defendants.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.