SPROULE ACJ The owner of the ship Hong Ho also owned two others.

For many years their repairs were executed by The Singapore Slipway and Engineering Company at Tanjong Rhu.

The Slipway Company gave the owners indefinite credit, and on 31st January, 1928, the owners owed them between $30,000 and $40,000 in respect of former repairs to the three steamers.

The Hong Ho damaged her propeller in December, 1927, and went to the Slipway Company for repairs, and was put on the slip on 29th December. Her annual survey was due in February, 1928, so the opportunity was taken to accelerate her survey and do all the necessary survey repairs at the same time.

The hull and under-water work being completed, the Hong Ho was launched again on 19th January, 1928, and moored for further repairs as near the slipway as could safely be done. The evidence is that this berth, convenient for repairing, would have been inconvenient to work or load the ship, and she would have had to be removed further into the Roads for any such purpose.

About this time a cheque paid to account of the owner's old debt to the Slipway Company, $5,000 in amount, was dishonoured. The owners made efforts to raise funds, and the cheque was again presented, but was a second time dishonoured, somewhere about the end of January, 1928.

On 30th January, 1928, in the morning, the safety-valves of the Hong Ho were "floated" or tested. In the afternoon the engines were tested, and it was found after a few revolutions that the main discharge pipe of the main condenser was defective. It was removed and sent ashore to the Slipway Company's premises for repair or replacement, as the surveyors should decide. They ordered a new pipe. This was brought, and then flexed and flanged at the Slipway Company's works, and was not fitted into place on the ship, as I find, till 3rd February, 1928.

On 31st January, the owner of his own initiative went to see Mr. Tryner, the Secretary of the Slipway Company. He regretted that his cheque had been returned dishonoured, but could offer no definite promise of payment towards his outstanding account of $23,000, although he had been to Penang to try and raise money and was negotiating for a sale of his fleet.

The Directors thereupon decided that the Hong Ho should be held up at the slipway "pending further developments". On the same or the next day, accordingly, the piston-valves were removed by the Company to prevent the ship from being moved, notwithstanding that another vital part namely the main discharge pipe, was already in their hands. The Company thus made assurance doubly sure.

On 1st February the owner wrote letters B1. I extract certain passages:-

"I wish to draw your attention to the fact that by the enforced idleness of the S.S. Hong Ho the chance of my being able to make good with you get lesser and lesser as the days pass by . . ."

"There are fairly good prospects of my being able to sell my ships as a going concern and settle with you . . ."

"I now make a final appeal to you to allow the Hong Ho to leave your dock to-day. I promise to meet the post-dated cheque within two weeks from to-day and pay you regularly. With my ships running I can do so . . ."

"In the event of our being unable to pay you within the two weeks, you may seize our ships, but for the present I hope you will give us a chance."

The owner thus admitted that his steamer was at the Company's dock, and was under seizure and in "enforced idleness". He asks for its release, for more time to meet the dishonoured cheque, and for longer credit.

The Company's reply was B2, sent on 3rd February. Mr. Trimmer writes:-

" . . . whilst wishing to assist you in every reasonable way, it is not possible at this juncture to allow the S.S. Hong Ho to leave the slipway as you suggest."

". . . in view of what you write as to your present financial position, the course you suggest would place the Directors in a very hopeless situation."

"I would further remind you that a