NAUTICAL COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XII, Issue 3391, 13 June 1881, Page 3

NAUTICAL COURT.

THE WRECK OF THE POLICEMAN.

OFFICIAL INQUIRY.

(Before K. C. Barstow, Esq., R.M., and Captain Frater, Nautical Assessor.)

Mr Laishley appeared for the Collector of Customs, and Mr Browning for Captain Champion and crew. This Court, it well be remembered, was adjourned from last Saturday in order that Mr Brown might be be examined. It was alleged that he had stated to Mr Pierce that it was intended all along that tbe vessel should be lost on her last trip. The clerk stated that a subpaina had been issued for Mr Brown's attendance, but it had not yet reached him.—Mr Laishley said he had another witness present who could give the evidence which he had promised to adduce.—James Buttlcr, chief clerk in the New Zealand Insurance Company's office, was called, an_ddeposed_: The schooner Policeman was insured in the New Zealand office for £500. They became aware of her loss by reports in the newspaper. That was on the Thursday after the loss. On the following day (Friday), Mr Brown, senr., who gave witness to understand that he was the father of a passenger of that name, called at their office. —Mr Laishley proceeded to ask what Mr Brown bad said oa that occasion, but, —Mr Browing objected. Stalcments|raade at random in tbe streets had nothing to do with an enquiry of this kind.— Mr Barstow said the counsel could ask the reault of the statement— In reply to the question Mr Buttle said the consequence of the statement made to him by Mr Brown was that the New Zealand Insurance Company felt it necessary to be represented at that inquiry. At this stage, Mr Samuel P. Brown entered the Court and was examined. He bad been an officer in the Customs for about 18 years. His son was a passenger by the Policeman on her last trip. Saw the loss of the Policeman reported in the paper. Remember going to tbe New Zealand Insurauce Office, and seeing Mr Buttle there. Did not know the Policeman was insured in the New Zealand Company when he called. He went there and enquired for Mr Pierce, the Manager, in order to enquire about the Policeman. He went thero because he knew his son was on board, and because his son had said that in all probability the vessel would not reach her destination. His object in going to the office was for the purpose of giving an instinction of that. He did not see Mr Pierce' but Mr Buttle.—Mr Laishley asked what he said to Mr Buttle.—Mr Browning objected. —Mr Laishley admitted the sound, ness of tho objection, but said it was competent for the Court to examine the witness further, although he could not press tho witness further.—By the Court: It was from his aon Stephen that he got the information which he conveyed in a statement to Mr Buttle. This was given a day or two before the vessel sailed, but he had misunderstood what his son really said. One of the reasons why be could not believe the statement was that his son had sailed in the vessel.—This was the whole of the evidence.—The Court decided that tbe captain was not to blame, and that he was justified in leaving Spirits Bay after the leak had been discovered nnd when tbe weather moderated. The captain's certificate was, therefore, returned.—Mr Browning applied under the Act for coats. —Mr Laishley pointed out that never, unless tender very extraordinary circumstances, had tho Court ordered a public prosecutor been ordered to pay the costs.— His Worship said he had made orders on the Marine Department oyer and over again for costs, and they had never refused to pay. If the captain in this case had been at all _to blame he would have ordered him to pay tha coats, but be conld not see that he was.—The Court allowed the captain £7 16s for hia costs,