The ARIADNE CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 17, 21 January 1902, Page 5

The ARIADNE CASE.

I-BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

OPENING BY THE CROWN PROSECUTORJTHE CONFESSION OBJECTED TO. EIS HONOR REJECTED THE CONFESSION. SEIZURE OF A LETTER BY THE CROWN. MUMFORD'S COUNSEL PROTESTS. (Special to the ''Star.") CHRISTCHURCH, Monday. The Ariadne cases came on at the Supreme Court before Judge Denniston this morning, when Thomas Caradoc Kerry, Eric John Hussey Freke and George Mumford were arraigned on three charges of casting away the schooner-yacht Ariadne on the beach north of Oamaru on March 24, 1901, of forming a common intention to cast away, and of conspiring to defraud the underwriters. Mr Stringer, Crown Prosecutor, of Christchurch, and Mr Meyers, Wellington, appeared for the Crown. Mr Hanlon, Dunedin, and Mr Skerrett, Wellington, appeared for Kerry, Mr G. Harper for Mumford, and Mr Cassidy and Mr Harvey for Freke. Mr Stringer opened the case, and in the course of his address, when he was about to refer to what Mumford said to Captain Willis Mr Harper raised the objection that the Crown Prosecutor could not introduce into his opening the details of a conversation, which confession might subsequently- be ruled to be inadmissible. His Honor said that if there was no reasonable apparent grounds for holding- the evidence inadmissible the reason fell. There must be some grounds for suggesting that this verbal admission was not admissible.

Mr Harper said that the confession was obtained by inducement.

His Honor said inducement was not sufficient, It must be a threat or promise. Mr Harper said the jury's mind should not be warped by hearing anything which afterwards might be discovered to be inadmissible. He would contend afterward;, that the statement was obtained by a threat or

promise. His Honor said the question was whether there were reasonable grounds for supposing that the evidence was inadmissible. If so that! evidence should not be referred to in the opening. Mr Stringer said he proposed to open in detail the verbal conversation, but not the written confession. He was not aware of any reason why the evidence was inadmissable.

Mr Skerrett submitted that there was upon the depositions a very substantial reason which would lead a weak maji to say what was untrue— that was the promise by Capt. Willis to give him £400. His Honor: That shows you have not read the depositions, for the depositions clearly show that that £400 was promised after the statement was made. Mr Skerrett: But before the confession "was written. After further argument Mr Stringer intimated that he would not refer to the details of the matter, and it was understood that Mr Harper would raise the point as to the admissibility of the confession when it was tendered iv evidence. Continuing- his opening, Mr Stringer said it appeared that in consequence of a statement made by Mumford to Captain Willis on May 28th in conversation that Captain Willis asked Mumford to put what he had said in writing, Mumford stipulating for and receiving a promise of £400 for so doing. In deference, however, to the wishes of prisoner's counsel he would not refer at any further length to that confession, which was duly written out by Mumford in his own way, and not under pressure or suggestion. The manner in which that piece of evidence had been obtained by Captain Willis might not have been a fair way to adduce evidence, but he pointed out to the jury when exceptional people had to be dealt with it was necessary to use exceptional means. The case against Mumford was based on direct evidence. There were the witnesses who ovei-heard him and Kerry making the arrangement for wrecking the yacht. There was' his own verbal statement and his own written statement, and there was the agreement signed by Kerry and Mumford and witnessed by Freke, by which Mumford agreed to totally wreck the Ari.adne for ,£4OO in addition to the wages he was to receive as sailing master of the yacht. In addition to -iius W .evidence against Mumford they • afeo >aad the evidence of his attempt to induce Mrs Downing to go back on her statements in the lower Court. These facts together with the suspicious circumstances surrounding the actual wreck of the yacht on an open coast and in a not particularly adterse sea showed that Mumford designedly cast the vessel ashore. Dealing- with question of how Kerry was mixed up with the matter, the learned counsel said the jury first had to be satisfied that the vessel was de-sie-nedlv cast ashore. That being done they had to consider Kerry s case. In regard to that prisoner, the evidence was of two kinds—direct and indirect, or circumstantial. The direct evidence was practically the same as against Mumford, and lie Would not deal at greater length with it. Inregard to the circumstantial evidence, the flrst point was that Kerry's motive in having the yacht "wrecked was to secure the insurance money, which was Very much in excess of the value of the yacht. He had bought the vessel originally for £2100, and that they might assume was about the Value. The insurance with Lloyds Tvas for £10,000, and was for one year from April, 1900, to April, 1901, the premiums oeing £750 for the one year. That could not be taken as proof of the casting away of the yacht, but it was one of the suspicions elements in connection with the we.'Then there seemed to be no

valid reason why the yacht should ever have come to New Zealand. It had no business to draw her here, but according to Kerry came here to refit, which he afterwards corrected by saying it was to re-provision. Well, at that%me Sydney was a free trade port, and therefore everything required could have been got muci. cheaper there than over here. No doubt a point would be made of the fact that Kerry did not come to New Zealand, but that could not weigh very much, and to say that Mumford designedly cast the yacht, away from sinister motives would be so far fetched as to be 9 worthless. As regards the third accused, Freke, learned counsel thought that possibly the jury would not have much trouble in disposing of the case against him. So far as the case for the Crown was known at the present, time there was no direct evidence against Freke except his signature to the agreement between Kerry and Mumford, and his close and confidential intimacy with Kerry. Speaking generally on the case, Mr Stringer said it was one of extreme gravity, and the first of its

kind to come iinder notice in Mew Zealand. It was also peculiar in some xespects, and would require careful consideration by the jury. Referring to the origin of the prosecution he said that Lloyds were very much interested in the yacht, having an insurance risk of £10,000. That beins co, it was onlj' natural that Capt. Willis, Lloyd's' representative in .New Zealand, should interes . himself in trying to fathom what appeared to him a most mysterious occurrence. He therefore entered into negotiations with Mumford, and for a time had in his possession xery valuable evidence of the crime that had been perpetrated, and had not communicated that evidence to the police, the guardians of justice in New Zealand —in fact much of Capt. Willis's evidence was practically forced from him by the authorities. The inducement ottered to Mumford did not in any way emanate from the Crown. Referring to the witness, .Mrs Downing, the authorities had made every possible enquiry as to her reliability, and they could ascertain no circumstances that detracted from her credibility as a witness. The agreement between Kerry and Mumford, and witnessed by Freke, was no doubt open to suspicion. It was for the most part merely the usual formal agreement between an owner and a master, but concluded with the words in the same handwriting as the original, which was Mumford's, "and a further sum of £400 if the vessel is tctally wrecked." It would be contended for the defence that those words were added after the document was signed by Kerry and Freke, and as a matter of fact amongst Kerry's effects when arrested was an unsigned agreement in Mumford's handwriting similar to the one in question, but minus the incriminating words. Whilst admitting the natural doubt that would be thrown on the agreement he would say that tlie document had been examined by leading- experts, who hail given it as their opinion that the incriminating words were written at the same time and with the sam_ pen and ink as the body of the documents. Mumford had informed Capt. Willis that prior to leaving Sydney he had written to a friend in England informing her that he was about to wreck the yacht, and he agreed to write asking to have the letter returned in a registered cover. Mr Harper objected to Mr Stringer referring to the contents of this letter or the circumstances surrounding its arrival in the colony. The circumstances under which the Crown had got possession of the letter would certainly be brought under the notice of the jury. Jle would afterwards claim possession of the letter.

His Honor protested against his being called upon to decide whether thfe Crown had a right to seize these documents, and stated that the letter would have to be produced if i. was to be used. Mr Stringer did not press the matter, and concluded his opening. The first witness called was John Fitzgerald, clerk in the Magistrate's Court at Oamaru, who took down the depositions at the nautical enquiry into the wreck of the Ariadne. He identified the depositions of tne three accused. By Mr. Skerrett: The log book of the Ariadne was /put in evidence at Oamaru, but was afterwards handed to the Collector of Customs, to be given to the owner of the yacht. Captain Stewart Willis, master mariner and Lloyd's surveyor, Lyttelton, was next called. He said Oamaru was out of his district, butafter the wreck of the Ariadne he was sent-down to the scene of the wreck. He would say that the maximum value afloat, of the vessel would have been £5000. He heard Mumford's evidence at the nautical enquiry, and his account of how the vessel came to run ashore. His opinion of the navigation as described by Mumford was that it was absolutely careless and unsafe, assuming, of course, that such navigation was honest. After the inquiry witness continued to take an interest in the wreck, and went to Dunedin on May 28, and that night saw the accused Mumford by appointment in a private room at the Grand Hotel. He asked Mumford whether it would not be better to be honest with him, and tell hrow the Ariadne was wrecked. Getting no reply to that he asked whether it would not be better to stick to him (Willis) than to Kerry, who had got him to risk his life and those of others, and then left him in the lurch. Further pressed by the question, "Did you or did you not wreck the Arii,dne?" .Mumford said, "I am sick of Kerry, I will tell you the whole thing to-morrow." They said no more then, and Mumford went away and came to him again the following morn Lag.

By Mr. Harper: Detective Fitzgerald was not employed in this matter by witness, but, he kneVMie was gettino- information for him. After the enquiry at Oamaru Mumford was employed at the wreck by Mr. John Mill, who purchased the wreck. Mumford was in Dunedin some days before witness arrived there, and it was for the purpose of seeing him that witness went to Dunedin, am appointment having been? made with Mumford by Detective Fitzgerald. Mumford was absolutely sober when wit£ss saw him at the hotel He> gave Mumford no money that night. In

i the first instance, when asked if he wrecked the yacht, Mumford probably "replied, "I decline to answer." At that time he (witness) was in the employ of Lloyd's, but had no authority then to offer Mumford a reward. Mumford came to him again at 11 o'clock the following morning. He gave him no money. He had no recollection of telling- Mumford that he was Lloyd's surveyor, but Mumford knew that that was his position. He first got authority to offer Mumford a reward on the aftei-noon of May 29, the day on which the confession was made. Up to that tyne no money had been offered to #lumford. Examination in chief continued: On the morning of May 29th Mumford eaine to the hotel again, and in response to a question said: "I was firstintroduced to Kerry by a man called Olsen, and eventually went to work on the yacht. After I had been working there for some time, having been engaged by Kerry, Kerry approached me as to throwing the yacht away, and it was eventually arranged that I should go in charge of her and do so. I was to get £400 for the-job— £200 when it was done, and the balance when the underwriters paid up. The original intention was to wreck the yacht on the West Coast, and the lifeboat was carefully fitted up with that object in view. In consequence of the lifeboat being lost in rough weather coming over I was not able to wreck her on the West Coast, and eventually landed her on the beach at Waitaki. Kerry arranged with me that after the vessel was lost he and I were to go Home, and if my certificate was dealt with he would get me a yachting- certificate. Kerry was lo get a larger yacht, insure her up to .the hilt, and the vessel was to be wrecked in Magellan Straits. Mumford also said he sent his clothes ashore, as he did not want to lose them. He also said he was to get £12 a month as sailing master. Asked as to why New Zealand had been fixed on for the wrecking of the yacht, Mumford said it was because there was no time to go anywhere else before the insurance policy expired. Mumford when asked to put the statement in writing refused, and ultimately witness said if he would do so he would be rewarded. To that accused said he would do so if he was rewarded, and thought he should get the same sum as was promised him for wrecking the Ariadne. That was all that took place that. day. On the following morning Mumford came back and wrote the confession. Mr Harper objected to the confession going in as evidence, inasmuch as it was induced by promise of reward. Mr Stringer submitted that the confession was admissible, as the promise was not calculated within the terms of the section to induce the man to make an untrue confession of guilt. His Honor upheld' the objection of Mr Harper. It was admitted tlia'f there was a promise to pay money, and Capt, Willis, who made the promise, was in a position of authdHfy, and could pay the money. It was calculated to induce a man to make an untrue admission of guilt. It seemed to him that a promise to a man to pay him money for vlo'ng something was a promise within the meaning of the section. It might tempt the .man tlo sny something that was not true. His only doubt was as to whether or not the statement having already been made, tinfurther putting* of it into writing was making an undue admission of guilt. Whilst not admitting the confession he would make a note of Mr Stringer's having tendered the evidence.

Continuing, witness said that Mumford had told him that he had a written document which would haveconnected Kerry with the affair, but he had lost it. Between May 30th and June Sth he had pressed him for the written document connecting-. Kerry. On June Bth, Mumfoni showed him the writing which lie said he had found in the lining- of an old coat. This was the agreement alleged to be signed by Kerry offering Mumford £400 if the boat were cast (away. Afterwards Mumford had made a more elaborate declaration before a notary. Mr Harper objected to this going in, and His Honor upheld the objection. The witness continuing said that he was forced to give up the agreement to the police in October at Wellington. He was most anxious not to give it up to the police. He had gone to Wellington to compare the signatures to the agreement with those on the depositions. His instructions were on no account to bring a criminal action, but simply to collect evidence to defend a ci.il action if one were brought. Cross-examined by Mr. Skerrett: He did not think it was necessary for a marine surveyor to have special qualifications to value a yacht, as opposed to any other kind of vessel. The Court adjourned at this stage, 5.45, until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. The jury were kept under police supervision over night. Accused Kerry and Freke were liberated -.ill the morning on their own recognisances. No application was made en behalf of Mumford.

CONTINUED ON PAGE 2