(Adjourned)
Shanghai, May 8.
Claiming that while saying goodbye on a pontoon owned by defendants on the Qual de France, she had been stuck and. knocked over by a heavy iron. shackled chain' which had resulted. in permanent incapacity, a Russian seamstress, Mrs, Shifova, claimed damages from the China Navigation Ca, bid in 1M. Supreme Court before Judge P. Grant Jones yesterday, She claimed that, hrough negligence on the part of servants of the company, the chain had been" allowed to become taut, striking her on the back of the legs and causing serious injuries. During the Nearing of the ease, which lasted all day, & Wooden model of a ship With chains attached was produced in cour 10 demonstrate how the accident happened ainda clockwork model of fa large ocean liner also was shown to the Judge, Mrs, Shilova was represented by Mr. IK, E, Newman and the defend-fants by Mr. C. E, Sherwin. Outlin" ing. his ease, "Me, Newman stated that Mrs. Shilova lived at House 27, 227 Tongshan Road, and that she was widow, earning her living by acting fay a seamstress or lacemaker to varlous persons In Shanghai.. One of the IaINUI's customers was passenger fon the 38, -Shuntien, sailing {rom Shanghai on June 10." 1939.
'On this date the plainti had gone a pontoon situated at or abutting on the Qual de France, this pontoon being owned by the China Navigue tion Ca, for the purpose of say goodbye' to the customer at the ae Vertived schedule time of sailing. The plaintitt proceeded on board the s, Shuntien and said goodbye, After the gong was struck, calling the nonpassengers on shore, she proceeded to the pontoon alongside of which the s, Shuntien was then berthed.
the plaintiff" proceeded io the pontoon' with many' other persons. Who Wore saying goodbye 10 passers. erg on the ship, In order to watch the departure of the vessel in accordance with the usual custom without lot oF Hindvance and/or objection on the part of defendants or their servants.
"The plaintiff continued to wait on the pontoon for the departure of the ship whan, suddenly and without any warning, "and with negligence the part' of the servants of the China Navigation Ca. the. servants caused and/or permitted a heavy iron shack= ed chain attached to the ship and to the pontoon to become taut whereby the said chain struck the plainti on the back of her legs ander lei, catis= ing: hee to fall whereby she sustained serous injuries.
Mr, Newman continued that the in. juries were to her right hand, back. ott lex und (0 her physleat system. causing serious shock thereto. added that the plaintiff was siress who hat been workin Shanghai for a period of four years nel by means of her needle had been fe to earn a sum of not Toss than 8120 4 month. The pontoon and the ship, he were the property of defendants, 'AS a result of the negligent action defendants, the claim stated, Ins, Shilova was now unable to earn any ieomne each month suffering. from a permanent disability ud had suffered damage from the defendants! negligence on June 10, 1939, Mrs, Shilova claimed $2.160, being the 1085 of estimated cornins at $120 month for eighteen months, S140 for damages for shock, bodily pain and suffering, $100 for medical expenses, costs and such further relict as the Court deckied, 'The defendants. denied negligence, 'Originally: the sation was ayainst Messrs, Butterfield & Swire, agents for the defendants, and the 'China Navigation Ca,, as second defendants, 1 was agreed' by counsel, however, and with His Lordship's consent, strike out the name of Messrs, But tevfield & Swire from the cause of action, Dating the morning hearing of the case, Mr, Newman quoted lave on the object of the action, claiming that Shilove was an [nvitee who had me_on the premises by the implied. invitation of defendants, On the pontoon, he said, there was no notice warning people to beware of chains nor was any warning given that the chain was going to be run, His Lordship. remarked that the" crux the ease, if negligence was prov: seemed to be whether Mr. Newman's lent was an invitee oF licensee, 'During her evidence' plainti" de~ monstrated her position at the time of the accident by means of a small wooden model of a ship. to. which two chains were attached, A' book was need (o represent the pontoon, She stated that she stood rather near the ship when she was talking to her customer, who was on the deck of the vessel! 'The chain struck ier on the Teys and she fell backwards, not remembering any more. She did hot know what struck her but it tet mark on her left leg, a little above the ankle, 'Witness' added that she fell flat_on liber back and broke her wrist, She was picked up by a man named Karantseff and" another person and] placed in a rickshaw in which she Tegained consciousness, She was] taken to the General Hospital and then went home, Later she went] ack to the hospital where she remained for tve days.
She then demonstrated to His} Lordship, who asked "Where do you Hold a hoodie? I'm afraid T don't sew" "how her hand was incapacitated, She was 56 years of age and she had sold some of her! effects and had moved into a room for which she did not pay at present, As a result of the accident she was Sulfering from backache and it was jeult for her to sit down because pain, She added she could not fit for "more than an hour to one and a half hours at a time, Crosexamined by Mr, "Sherwin, she said M, Paul Premet had made claim on her behalf on September 22 last year, The reason for the clay was that she had been feeling unwell, She admitted that on September 27 she had been examined by Dr, Patrick who, in his report, had stated that she had had an aceident-on June 10 but there was disability. His Lordship then remarked that it there was stimmes there was disability. and it was out that
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.