Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

The Pechili, 1887

[shipping]

The Pechili

Supreme Court for China and Japan
Rennie CJ, 14 September 1887
Source: North China Herald, 17 September 1887

LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s SUPREME COURT.
IN ADMIRALTY.
Shanghai, 14th Sept., 1887
Before Sir R. T. Rennie, Chief Justice.
IN CHAMBERS.
The Steamship Pechili, BRADLEY Master.
  Mr. W. V. Drummond for the Plaintiff.
  Mr. A. Robinson for the defendant.
  A summons having been taken out by the plaintiff applying to the Court for an order that the ninth paragraph of the answer filed in this suit by the defendant be struck out of the answer, the matter was argued this morning before his Lordship.
  Mr. Drummond argued that the paragraph was unnecessary, immaterial to the issue, and tended to prejudice.  He cited Rules 27, and 47 of the Rules of the Supreme Court; also authorities on the English practice, and asked that the order might be made to strike out the paragraph in question and that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs of this summons.
  Mr. Robinson argued that he intended to raise the question referred to in the paragraph, in connection with the costs of the suit, and that therefore under the Rules he was bound to plead it, and he referred to the Rules of the Court and to a decision in a salvage suit in the Court in England.
  His Lordship decided that the paragraph was quite unprecedented and irrelevant, and that as he would not allow the matter referred to in the paragraph to be gone into at the hearing of the case, it was not proper to insert the paragraph in the answer.  He therefore ordered it to be struck out of the answer, and the defendant to pay the costs.

 

Source: North China Herald, 24 September 1887

LAW REPORTS.
H.B.M.'s SUPREME COURT.
IN ADMIRALTY.
Shanghai, 22n Sept., 1887
Before Sir R. T. Rennie. Chief Justice, and Captain Maturin, H.M.S. Merlin, Assessor.
THE KING CHING FAH v. THE PECHILI.
[Not transcribed.]
Adjourned to 24th September.
Judgment was given this (Saturday) afternoon in the case King Ching Fah v. Pechili, the latter being pronounced to be solely to blame for the collision.
See North China Herald, 5 October, for full judgment.]

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School