470 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. VIII. BRITISH COLUMBIA ADMIRALTY DISTRICT. 1904 THE VERMONT STEAMSHIP COMPANY. _Jan. 22. AGAINST THE SHIP " ABBY PALMER." Practice—Service of process—Time. In the service of its process, as well as in its sittings and in the public hours of its registry, the court will be guided by the civic time in use in the town where the court sits, unless it is made to appear that such time is in fact incorrect. AT the trial of this salvage case, on the 22nd January, 1904, before Martin, L.J., assisted by Commander John F. Parry, R•.N., H. M. S. Egeria, and Commander Sande-man, R.N., H. M. S. Grafton, as nautical assessors for . the plaintiffs,
VOL. VIII.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS.. 471 E. V. Bodwell, K.C. (with him J. H Lawson) proposed 1904 to read evidence of certain witnesses taken de bene esse ; THE and he read an affidavit proving that they were ex VERMONT STEAMSHIP jurisdiclione. Co. v. W. J. Taylor, K.C., for the ship objected as there was THE Site ABBY no notice of this application. PALM ER. E. V. Bodwell, K.C.: The order for it, dated November Argwnent of Counsel. 30th, 1903, stands and has never been objected to. By that order evidence taken under it may be used at the trial on an affidavit of the solicitor stating his belief that the witnesses are absent from the province. W. J. Taylor, K.C.: But even supposing the order has been made regularly it has not been properly served. It provides that the plaintiff's witnesses should be examined at 12 o'clock, noon, but the defendants had no notice of this till after that hour ; at that time no appearance had been entered for the defendants. E. V. Bodwell, K.C. : Notice of application was served before order on the master of the Abby Palmer and upon Messrs. Eberts & Taylor. The appointment was duly obtained and was served on defendants' master and Messrs. Eberts & Taylor before 12, though I was not aware of the service having been effected, and so on attending at 12 I took an adjournment till 2.30 as a matter of precaution, and though we could not serve the master personally we did serve the solicitors as they now appear to . be, though I admit no solicitor was then on the record and did not appear on the examination. W. T. Taylor, K C.: The service upon Eberts & Taylor before appearance is an absolute nullity, and they are not now and never were the solicitors upon the record. As regards service on our captain, that was too late. I read affidavit of our master, Johnson, and of Captain Cox to prove this.
472 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS, [VOL. VIII. 1904 E. V. Bodwell, K.C. urged that this issu3 of fact as to THE the service be now disposed of, and asked that the vari- VEH11ioNT ous STEAMSHIP witnesses on each side be examined on the point. Co. He offered for examination in support of his contention THE SHIP one Charles McDougall, who was examined and cross-ABBY examined, as were likewise, on behalf of the defend -PALMER. ants, their master (Johnson) and Captain Cox. Eons for After hearing these witnesses, Judgment. Per Curium : On the evidence it is found as a fact that the service was effected before twelve o'clock. McDougall is positive that he heard the City Hall clock strike the hour after he served Johnson, and though Johnson (whose evidence is not of a satisfactory nature) and Cox say that by their watches this was not done till a few minutes after twelve, yet neither of them states that his watch agrees with the civic time, and therefore there is no real contradiction of McDougall's statement. In such case, as between the time kept by private individuals and that kept by the civic corporation, I shall in the absence of evidence to the contrary presume the latter to be correct ; for it is that which generally regulates public and private affairs within the corporate limits ; and is and has long been in practice accepted by this court as correct in the holding of its sittings, and in keeping open its registry. If on any particular day the civic time were shown as a fact to be incorrect, that would be another matter, but there is no such suggestion as regards the day in question. Therefore let the evidence be read. Objection overruled
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.