THE ARIADNE CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIII, Issue 17, 21 January 1902, Page 2

THE ARIADNE CASE.

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 5

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CAPT

WLLIS

The trial of Kerry, Mumford, and j Freke, charged with canting away the Ariadne on March 24 last, was .re- ! sumed at the Supreme Court this morning. Continuing his evidence, under cross-examination of Mr Skerrett, Captain Willis, Lloyds' surveyor, said he was not engaged in collecting evidence on behalf of Lloyds at Oamaru during the nautical inquiry. Tie was present at the inquiry, at the request of Mr Denniston , Lloyds' Dunedin representative.. Between Ist May and 15th he received instructions from Mr Denniston to collect evidence. He and Mr Denniston agreed that the circumstances of the wreck were suspicious, but nothing was then said about getting at Mumford. He first communicated with Detective Fitzgerald on May 16th and asked him to make inquiries and sec if he could find anything out about the wreck. Between May 18th and 24th he hud a letter from Mr Fitzgerald at Tirnam, who said he had seen Mumford, who was very dissatisfied with Kerry's treatment of him. Fitzgerald also intimated that he had had a conversation with the porter of the hotel at Timaru, whose daughter had found a document in the sitting-room belonging to Mumford. The porter also said if all was known that he knew Kerry would not be long in New Zealand. When witness left Christchurch for Dunedin he knew that Fitzgerald wa.s arranging an interview between him and Mumford. on arrival at Dunedin. In the letter conveying this information no reference was made to Ihe means by which the information was to be obtained from Mumford. When witness arrived at Dunedin he was met by Fitzgerald, who on the way to the hotel said he thought that if witness tackled Mumford himself he would get, the truth out of him. Fitzgerald was a detective in the police force, and was not paid anything by witness for his services. lie had not obtained permission of the police authorities lo make use of Fitzgerald, so long as he was not paving him anything. The first- interview with Mumford was at the Grand Hotel on May :38th. It might have lasted an hour and a half. Ariadne matters were not discussed the Iwhole time, and as Mumford was evidently distressed he was careful not to take undue advantage of him. He had no recollection of seeing Lloyds' representative at Dunedin after the interview on May 28th, nor had he any recollection of again seeing Fitzgerald in Dunedin. At the interview with Mumford on the mornng of May 29fh nothing more passed between them than he had stated in his evidence-in-chief, lie was emphatic that at that interview when the verbal confession was made no.offer or promise of £400 was made. Any statement by him in the, depositions in the Lower Court that he promised .-400 at that interview was not correct. There were two interviews that day, and the promise was made in the subsequent one. Among the matters mentioned 'by Mumford at tbe interview was Hint Warner, cook of the Adriane, would know something about wrecking the yacht, and he was sure ho had overheard a conversation. He had not mentioned that fact in the lower court, or in examination in chief yesterday, as it had escaped his memory, and he was asked no questions about it. At the second interview on May 29th Witness asked Mumford if he had a.ny document or letter from Kerry, and Mumford said he had written several letters to Kerry complaining of his conduct, and would write another and show it to witness. In the lower court- and .again yesterday, he remembered there were two interviews on May 29th, but said nothing about there being two, and that it was at the second that the promise of £100. to put the, confession into writing was made, because he did not think it a matter of any importance. At either the interview on the afternoon of May 29th, or on the morning of May 30th, he asked Mumford if he had any document that would connect Kerry with the matter about which the confession was made. lie thought it was on the :.()tn. After consulting his notebook, witness said he would swear he did not ask for evidence incriminating jverry on May 29th. lie asked for that after he had made Mumford a payment of money. In response to the question if he had a document incriminn/ting Kerry, Mumford said he had had one, which would incriminate Kerry, but had mislaid

o;1 lost it before or after the wreck. He said he had foolishly mentioned to Kerry at Oamaru that lie had lost the document, and Kerry replied that he had no hold on him. Witness expressed surprise at the time that Mumford should have lost such an important document. Between the interviews of May 29th witness saw Mr Benniston, Lloyd's Dunedin agent, and by him was authorised to use discretion in psy;ng Mumford up to ,£4OO for making a written copy of tbe confession at the interview of May 29th. Mumford volunteered to write a letter to Kerry and kliow that letter to witness. Mumford sat down in the room, and on paper taken, from his own pocket wrote a letter to Kerry, in which Kerry was informed that the agreement to wreck' the Adriane was known to others than themselves, and that Kerry had better not try any funny business over the matter. The fact that the letter was written at the' interview on the 29th he had not mentioned previously, as he had forgotten it till counsel now brought it to his memory. That letter was taken by witness to Mr Benniston, and with Mumford's consent a copy was made. He had no idea how long Mumford had been occupied writing the letter, but he had ho drink while so doing. Mr. Skerrctt desired to show the jury a rough plan of the room in which the letter was written, but His Honor declined to allow this to be' done, on the ground that no reason was shown why the arrangement should be brought into the case. Mr. Skerrett asked if the Judge would make a note of the application. His Honor: Certainly not. Continuing under close cross-exam-inatio'i. witness said no conversation passed :>.Uveen them whan tha letter

was being written. When it was finished Mumford handed the letter, which was written in copying ink, to witness, who read it, and asked permission to copy it. , Mumford went away, leaving the letter with witness. He took the letter at once to Mr Denniston, saying, "Here's tie letter Mumford has volunteered to write Kerry. It is an extraordinary document:" Mr Denniston perused the letter, remarking on its extraordinary nature and at once had a press copy or typewritten copy made. Witness got the original back a_id gave it to Mumford the following morning, and suggested that he should pos-t. it. Mumford added a postscript which also was copied and the letter, posted. The letter asked Kerry to pay up, and threatened if the money was not forthcoming he would go" to those who would pay him for his information. The postscript insisted on the reply to the letter being by cable. The letter was signed. ''Kettle," which Mumford explained was a name knpwn between him and Kerry. Copies of the letter and tlie postscript were put in as evidence. (Proceeding.)