THE ARIADNE CASES

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 11111, 1 November 1901, Page 3

THE ARIADNE CASES

MAGISTERIAL PROCEEDINGS.

SENSATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS.

CONFESSION BY MUMFORD.

A large number of interested spectators gathered in the Provincial Council Chamber J yesterday morning to hear ths case for ths I Crown against Mumford, Kerry and Freke. charged m connection with tbe wreck of # the sailing yacht Ariadne. THE CHARGES. Five charges were preferred against the accused as follows -. — "That George Mumford, of Lyttelton, master mariner, Thomas Carodock Kerry, of Sydney, traveller, and Eric John Hussey Freke, of Sydney, teaman, on -larch 24th, 1901, near the east coast of New Zealand, one and a half miles south of the Waitaki river, did cast away a certain ship, to wit the sailing yacht known as the Ariadne. "That 1 nomas Carodock Kerry, of Sydney, traveller, Eric John Hussey Freke, oi Csyoney, seaman, and George Mumlord, ol Lyttelton, master mariner, on the i_thApril, 1901, at Oamaru, in the coiony oi New Zeaiand, did conspire together by deceit and falsehood, and other fraudulent means, to defraud certain persons, that is to say, the underwriters of a certain ship, to wit, the ship Ariadne, which said .ship was stranded and lost on the '_ith March, 1901, at a point one and a half miles trom the mouth of the Waitaki river on the east coast oi the South Island ox New Zealand." "That Thomas Carodock Kerry, of Sydney, traveller, Eric John Huesey Freke, ol Sydney, seaman, and George Mumlord, of Lyttelton, master mariner, on the _oth day of February, 1901, at Sydney, did form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose, to wit, the casting away in New Zealand of the Ariadne, and to assist each other in such purpose, in the prosecution of which common purpose the ship was on the 24th March, 1901, cast away at a point one and a half miles from the mouth of the Waitaki river, near the east coast of New Zealand, by E. J. H. Freke and G. Mumlord, whereby each of them became a party to the offence to cast away the ship." "That T. Iteiry on the 25th February, 1901, at Sydney", did counsel and procure two other persons, G. Mumlord and L. Freke, to be parties to a certain offence in New Zealand, the offence of casting away the Ariadne, to which offence the said Mumford and Freke were afterwards, en the 24th March, 1901, guilty, whereby Kerry bscame a party to the ohence. 1 ' "That G. Muniford and Freke, on 24th March, at a point one and a half milesouth of tie Waitaki river, did casli away the Ariadne.*' Mr T. W. Stringer, and with h;rMt M.. Myers, of Wellington, appeared for the Crown; Mr W. J. Napier, of Auckland, Mr A. C. Hanlon. of Dunedin, for the accused Kerry and Freke. and Mr H. J. Beswick, of Christchurch, for Mumford. Commissioner Tunbridge and Inspector Ellison were also present. Three charges were read out first of- all— those alleging casting away, forming common intention to oast away, and defrauding the underwriters. Mr Stringer intimate, that he proposed to take one set of depositions on these three charges, and he added that there were two additional charges against the accused,. which he should probably afterwards apply to have withdrawn, but at present they could be left in abeyance. MB STRINGER'S OPENING SPEECHIn. summarising tbe facts of the case for the Magistrate, Dr. McArthur, Mr Stringer said, that the informations arose out of the wreck of the' yacht Ariadne <m the 24th of March last. The Crown would prove that the accused Kerry was tbe owner of the yacht,- and that he. had . purchased her sonia short time back for ■ the sum of .£2IOO, and that he had m- ( sured her for a very large sum of money—.: iust upon £10,000. The yacht _was_lvine in .Sydney Harbour on the 25th Feb- 1 ruary .last,,, ajift while there, a ma*ter: t ahd. s -" r? by -Kerry;*=-_d *A<f was sent' on a voyage to New Zealand. The: accused Mumford was appointed the master,- and the 'accused Freke was an ordinary. ship's' hand, signing articles, in the otd"inary way.- - The ship reached the slore- of. New, Zealand, in wie month of March, and, without going into details, he might ' say that on. the 24th of March she was wrecked oh the .east coast • of tbe South Island, a-out _ mile and a half south of the; Waitaki River. ' She was beached, and the crew practically, jumped off the ship on to the twach. Alterwards ths skip was broken ' up. The case that the Crown .should make against the accused would' differ as,to each. ' With regard to the accused Mumford, they had a clear and, apparently, frank confession of the • wiiole of the circumstances. That confession, of course, was evidence only against himself,. and not against the other accused. ' In the course of that confession, however, he produced a- document which the Crown had, and' which, if (as he*should,be able to show it was) signed, . as it .purported to be signed, both by the accused Kerry and the accused Freke," left no possible doubt that they were also parties to the casting away of the ship. - There were, in addition to the confession, a variety.of circumstances which he would not trouble the Magistrate with then. He thought it necessary just ", to stats a few facts a« to how Mumford's confession was obtained. ' The; insurance was with tro underwriters at Lloyd's, and Captain Willis was their representative -in- New ZcaTand, and, of course, it was his duty, on the wreck taking place/ to make all inquiries, and to ascertain all information possible. Some time after the inquiry had been held, certain information came to his- knowledge which led him to approach the accused. Mumford, and enter into, some' matters with him. On this particular occasion—-May 29th—the acicused Mumford refused to make any statement, "but promised to make a statement the next day,.'and on the next day he made a verbal statement, practically to the effect of the confession which he subsequently made more in detail. He was asked on that occasion to put the statement in writing, but refused to do so unless he was rewarded. Captain Willis promised to reward him, .and eventually agreed, to pay him £400, which he stated was the sum Kerry had agreed to pay him if he should cast away the ship and wreck her. TJiat statement was put into writing by Slumlord himself. The statement, itsy l£ would not be produced, as it had been sent to England, but a press copy would be put in. Later on Captain Willis procured Mumford to elaborate his statement before a solicitor and notary public in Christchurch, and what was said was taken down carefully and declared to by Mumford. That statement would be put in. Mumford was pressed by Captain Willis later on a* to whether or not he had not some document which would support the statement that tie.had made, and he then informed Capt. Willis that he had had such _ document, but that he had lost it. Some few weeks later he informed Captain Willis that he had found the document, and ultimately he produced it and handed it over to Captain Willis, and it . was now in the possession of the Crown. j lhat document, of course, was the one : he referred to, and would be produced, ! and if it was signed, as it purported to J De signed. and as he thought they "should ; be able to prove it was signed, by Kerry and Freke. would, he considered, leave little doubt as to their being parties to the casting away. Mr Stringer then stated chat confessions and statements obtained by inducements were somewhat discounted as to .their value, hut he added that Captain Willis had -actedentirely on hifc own' responsibility, and not under the supervision of the police, who, indeed, were not aware of what was taking place until things had assumed a certain aspect. The Folice Department obtained knowledge of what was taking place—contrary ! to Captain Willis's wishes—and they imi mediately set the criminal law in motior and had "the accused all arrested, and toolsteps to prevent any further concealment, the object, of course, being in the interests of public justice, that the whole thing . should be brought to light. He menj tioned this iv order that it might be quite clear that, so far as the Crown Tras con-

ccrned.-they- wsie in no way instrumental in offering any indtrcement whatever to Mumford ,to make any confession or admission of- his guilt. The case, therefore, would vary to some cxteut as against then accused. As-against Mumford, they had his clear admiss'oii. In addition to trhat 4hey had the agreement which he produced, and which, of course, wa.« strongly eontirmed by his confession,., and they had also the surrounding circumstances, which he thought went very -i strongly to bear out the truth of his con- j fewvion! As against Kerry they had the agreement itself, which he shou'.d prove was signed by him, and which left no , doubt that he'induced the casting away, I and that he' had agreed to reward Mumford < for doing would also show that, I apparently, preparations had been made ; for such an event, for the j-riip was prac- i tically stripped of al". the valuables before ! she left Sydney harbour. There was also the fact that lie purchased the vessel for ; £2100, and had insured' her for close.upon j £10,030. and there was also the circumstance that it seemed difficult to know what reason she had for coming to NewZealand at all. As against Freke there was, of course, the agreement which he had signed under such circumstances as to leave little doubt that he had been a party to the fraud. He also assisted to remove the goods from the yacht before she left Sydney. He was on bo;trd when the ship was wrecked, and latter.y he was found and arrested with the accused Kerry —found to be in close association with him, living with* him, and occupying the same bedroom with him in Sydney. Under these circumstances he thought there could be no doubt whatever that there was a strong prima facie case against the accused, ana that they must stand their triah THE EVIDENCE. John Fitzgerald, cadet in the Stipendiary Magistrate's Court, O-amaru, stated thai he was present at the enquiry by the Customs into the wreck of the Ariadne on April 12th, 13th, 15th, and 16th- All the accused had been present, and gave evidence, which witness, who. had acted as clerk,-had taken down in writing, and they had signed in his presence. He produced the statement made by Mumlord, and read ■ it. He also produced a letter produced by Mumford at the enquiry, aud the statements made by the accused Kerry and Freke. Stewart Willis, master., mariner and Lloyd's surveyor at Lyttelton, stated that he had acted lor Lloyd's in connection with the wreck of the Ariadne. He first saw the wreck on March 30th, but had previously sent Mr Ferrier to represent bam. The value of the ship when she was afloat was, in his opinion, about £5000, and tfhat would ba a liberal valuation. He had heard Mumford give his account of the wreck at the piehminary enquiry, and had seen tho courses ha took or had intended to take as marked by him on the chart. The difference between the actual position of the Ariadne and ths position Mumford thought she was in on the day of the wreck, would be approximately 29 miles. This difference could, not have been the result of current or sea. On May 28th witness had gone to Dunedin, where he saw and spoke, to Mumford in connection with the wreck. Mumford came to witness's private sitting-room at the Grand Hotel, and witness had said: —"Is it nob better, Mumford, to be honest with mc, and tell mc the whole truth about this Ariadne business. • Which is it better to do—to stick to this man Kerry, who, I am sure, has persuaded you to risk your life and the lives of other people, also your certificate, and then has ieit you in "the lurch; or' to be honest and straightforward with us" Witness then asked:--"Did you wreck the Ariadne?"' Mumfoid replied: "I decline to answer;" but afterwards said: "I'll come and tell you all to-morrow morning', Captain;.l am disgusted with Kerry." Next morning' at eleven o'clock Mumford came to the hotel, and said:—"l first met Mr Kerry, through a.man named O.seu, and eventually went to work on ths yacht. After working some little time there, K=rry gradually approached .mc. as to if I would tliiow the yacht away for him, and it was eventually agreed thrffc he should do so. I was to receive the sum of £400,' £200 to he, paid . wheii 7;tfe4 ,?jcb was done, and the balance when tne underwriters paid up.." • Witness asked biihi:—"Why was New Zea- ; Jnnd^chosen.. a^uufe^fca?*:' to; yacht?" To which -Junuord-had "I understand that the policy of Jnsararicc was nearly expired .*-and that was not really time her fui*_aer away. The lifeboat was carefully fitted out,. tie original intention being to wreck her oh the west coast of New "Zealand, but this plan had to be -abandoned in consequence of the lifeboat beinginst during heavy weather on the voyage over. '•" It had been arraneed that if this waff-.carried, out successfxuly Kerry told mc that- he. and I would proceed Home, accl a larger and much more valuable yacht bought, the vessel to be heavily, end when the propsr time came, to he lost in the Straits of Marian. Kerry promised mc, in case my certificate was dealt « with, that he would get mc a yachting certificate . on my arrival "at Home." „ Witness had pi'esxed Mumford to put this in writing, hut he said:' —"I don't care to do so." Witness said.:—"There is no use ■ oeating about, the bush. This must- he put in writing If you will act straightforwardly and honestly with mc I will see that you are. rewarded." Mumford said: —"I "will do so if you reward mc." Mr Napier: Was"the-figure fixed? Yes. Any bidding about the price? No. . THE CONFESSION. Continuing, witness stated that he said to Mumford: — T wfel give you £400," and Mumford had agreed to write out the state- . ment. which he did on. May 30th.' The original had bsen sent to England, but witness had taken a press copy, which he produced, and read as follows: —"Dunedin, May 30th, 1901 —The following is a statement of tbe facte concerning the loss of tho yacht Ariecne, on the coast of New Zealand, on the night of Sunday, March 24th, 1901, and T, the undexagned", George Mumford, late master of the Ariadne, do declare the same to be true in every particular. I first met Kerry through a man called Olsen, and went to work on board the yacht Ariadne at Kerry-' 1 recwesr. in Sydney H-tbaur, about the Ist nl February, ISOI. " After working some day? on board, Kerry a.«ked mc if 1 wanted Vc make mon~y. and gradually.broached the subject of wrecking the yacht. As I wa? at the time very bard up for money, I evenivtally agreed to do so. For doing this 1 wa< to receive £12 a month until" she was wrecked. I was to be friven £200 when the joh was done, and £200 more when Kerry re-

ceivetl the insurance from the.underwriters. I agreed to this'arrangemert. and eyu'tuahy wrecked the yacht on the Waitaki oeaeh; It was oriainaUv intended to wreck the vessel on tho West Coast of this Island, but I could not do so, as we lost o;;r lifeboat on the passa~e over. This boat had been got ready by mc during the passage, and even-thing necessary put into her. The idsa was, that after I had made a total wreck of the Ariadre (and it was agreed, iirnv it must b? a total loss), I was to" go Home to England, and he was to find ths means of getting mc a yachting certificate if my - certificate was suspended. Kerry was then going N> get hold of another yacht of much more value, insure her heavily, and I was to take her out and wreck her in the Magellan Straits, and was to get £IGQQ down as security, and a much larger sum if I aiada a total loss of her. The reason why the Ariadne was to he wrecked on the co.tst of New Zealand was because the insurance policy was nearly expired, and there was rot. sufficient- time to get away to any more out of the wav place. "All the yards of thi Ariadne were left in Sydney, and I sent all my clothes and valuables on shore, not wishing to lose them. I have witnesses to prove this, and also witnesses who overkeafu a great portion of the arrangement made between myself and Kerry. Youn<» E. J. Freke was present with Kerry when°our arrangements were made, but he is a confidential friend of Kerry's, and not likeh- to divulge anything. Geo. Mumford" 30.5.01." No one had been present, except witness, whilst Mumfo'd wrote his statement, but Mumford's signature was witnessed by a Mr Smith. THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT. Proceeding, witness said that Mumford stated in reply to his (witness's) question, that there had been an agreement between Kerry and himself, but he had lost it. He Tfad at Oamaru foolishly, told Kern- that he had lost the agreement, and had tried lrard to get. him to give linn another, as he had received no portion of his promised reward. Kerry had told Mumford that he had no hold on him, as he had lost the document. Later ou, June 7th or tßh, Mumford told witness that he had found the agreement in the lining of an old coat.The document, produced; was the agreement, which read: — "I, T. C. Kern", agree with George Mumford to pay him £12 per month wages as master of the Ariadne, and a further sum of £400 if the vessel is totally wrecked.. (Signed) T. C. Kerry." Witness had Mumfoid's statements put in a more formal shape, and Mr Bruges had taken down his statement. (This was also read, and was practically an extension of the statement given above). Mumford had received the £400 witness had promised him. Kerry had come into a room at Oamaru, where witness Avas alone during the enquiry. Kerry was in a very excited state, and said: —"lib is disgraceful the way mud has been thrown at mc in this ease." He also asked witness to arrange that his ! (Kerry's) cross-examination should not be ' pu'i in the paper. "What can you gain by this?" Kerry had asked: "You could gain.more in the oilier direction." WitI ness said:—"You have come to the wrong I man; I could not, and would not, suppress anything." Witness stated that in offering a reward to Mumford, he had acted on his own responsibility, under instructions from his principals, and his action had not been done with the know.ledge of the police authorities.. Cross-examined by Mr Napier: —Witness represented the people with whom the yachtwas insured for £10,000 ultimately. He was hot aware that it was a practice with Lloyd's to inspect ships before taking risks over them, although he believed that it was *» rtovnTonVi 1-wnnfTfin TT__ rlt*3 —tr*4* bnritt" *"fcf- of

valuation had been made with regard to the Ariadne. It was quite probable that Lloyd's would insure the vessel without survey or inspection if certain well-known men brought in the cover notes. Ths insurance could only be effected, lie believed, through a broker. Ho had' inspected ths vessel after she went ashore,, as aiso had Mr Ferrier, but witness was not aware that ho had made a valuation. The information.which had resulted in witness going to Dunedin'to see Mumlord was that Mumford was very hard up, and that he had expressed himself-as-dis-satisfied with the way Kerry had treated him. Not until a short time ago,"after the informations were is-ued, did witness, know . that; Kerry had issued a- writ, claiming the insurgjja£&juane.j; he knew, however; -before. - he ■ 'went to Dunedin, that the"insurance money had nob been paid over. Mr Denniston ana he'-.'hadrhad carte blanche from Lloyd's to .i-liojr flic matter out, and.spend money, if ntaei_ary a but_li» had hot received specific ; instructions, to bribe Munifora, and it wa,s I alter ths latter had. made his verbal confession thaj there was' ajiV'taik . of reward:- , When, witness asked Mumford to tell the ; whole truth, he believed that* Mumford's evidence beiore the,enquiry wan false;" and wit- • ness, still so believed. * He would not have [paid £400 to Mumford had he not.known ' cf other suspicious circums-taiices. lle- ? girding the amount paid for'his statement,' ; Mumford considered that- He ought. to oe ' paid the Eame "amount as he was'to receive t from Kerry. -The first instalment of £100 \ was paid to Mumford on May' 30th at j Duncdm. He. did not think.it necessary f to have any writing connecting Herry with [the wreck, relying on Kerry s previous. | career and the suspicious n_tu__ of the ; wreck, and the fact that the ship was overinsured. He had paid Mumfora the..second instalment, £150, sometime- in.June,. and the i last instalment in July. Mumford had | not told witness that the only writing he j had of Kerry s was one by which he was J to receive £12 per month* - At the time j-Mumford made, his first confession to witi ness he told him that his wages were'£l2 per month. Witness had not suggested the payment of a reward to Mumtortl for nis j lnlcrmation. It had .not. occurred to him to have a witness piescnt" -whilst Mumford j was writing his statement. He had not ' suggested- anything in the statement either 1 belore or after Mumford took up his pen to write, and he ,had nob spoke*a to him whilst he wrote it.- The statement was not read over to the witness to Mumford's I signature, and the statement.was covered i over with a newspaper while Mr Smith wit- : nested Mumfoid's signature. Several times before payiug the third instalment of tho £400 witness had asked Mumford if he had'no writing connecting Kerry with tne wreck, and Miunf ord, had said tna,t he had a .document —an agreement to' wreck the : Ariadne—but had, unfortunately, lojit it. j Afterwards Mumford found it. The writing of the bedy of the agreement was in Mumford's handwritin". I Did you ask Mumford if there was more ] than one document? —No. Did-he say there was'?— No. j Then you" did not a*k him if he had i I signed it '( —Nn. _ i j Witness, continuing, stated that he had j visited Mumford three times since ho went , I to gaol. Witness was strongly interested in the result of the present proceedings on ' behalf of his principals. ■ Ke-'exainined by Mr Stringer: The suspicions circumstance connected with Kerry was that he had learnt that he was borrowing small sums of mohey; also the fact that there "were hardly any provisions on board the yacht, and the cupboaid and lockers generally used for carrying plate and china a_d general fittings of a yacht* of that description were also empty. He also knew when the first attempt was made to insure the vessel for £20,000 Mr Napier objected that this was not admissible. , Witness, continuing, stated that the navigation of the yacht, as described by the master at the enquiry, was distinctly* suspicious, as there" was no necessity for a vessel boucd for Dunedin being in dangerous proximity to that portion of the coastArthur Henry Bosworth, clerk in the Baisk ef New Zealand, stated that for twenty years he had been bill-clerk and ledger-keeper, and his experience in exa__nin» signatures was pretty considerable. He considered that the signatures "T. C Kerry" on several different exhibits were written by one and the same person. Kerry's signatures iv his depositions at the "nautical enquiry differed from other e,ignatures, but this was due to the fact that he had evidently written in a cramped position. He had not the slightest doubt that the signature "E. J. Freke'' on one exhibit was written by the same peison who wrote the same signature on the depositions given at the nautical enquiry. Mr Hanlon submitted a copy oi the agreement between Kerry and Mumford, ■with the exepption that it did not contain Mumford's name, and the following words: "And a fuj._h.tr sum of £400 if the vessel b? totally wrecked,' and the witness con-

s'dered it was a. copy of the agreement put in with the exceptions named. Percy Attwood, able seaman, stated that h* was one of the crew of the Ariadne, -juming her at Sydney on February 22nd. He was engaged by .Kern*. He joined the ship the" same evening lie was engaged. He did not know then when the. ship was to sail. The vessel sailed ou the 25th. He was on board the whole, time from when he joined till the vessel sailed, with the exception of two hours, when he went ashore to get his clothes. He remembered the lifeboat being taken ashore with some c«wgo to a small jetty, about two miles beyond Circular Quay, away from the city. J his was about 8 o'clock on the night of February 24th. The cargo consisted of trunks, whisky cases, bags, and other small parcels—about fourterin 'to sixteen packages all told. He did not know what they contained, but the two he handled were very heavy. The packages were put into a bathing house. He was one of the boat's crew; and "there were others of the crew — KochnitzskK Glen, Wachsmith, Harding, Mr Kerry, MrVFreke, and, he believed, Mr Wragge. The sixteen packages well filled the. boat, but it was not necessary for the whole eight to land the cargo and pull the boat. ashore. Five would have -been sufficient, but Kerry, Freke, and Wragge went as- passengers. .Harding was in charge under Mr Kerry's orders. All.the cargo was landed, and a man in.charge of the place received it. He heard the man tell Mr Kerry he would have to take the things away "the first thing ,in the mornii.g, aa it would interfere with his .business. Mr "Kerry said he would 'do 'so.' He, could, not say' whether there were wharves more convenient, to Circular Quay .to which these goods might have'been taken. They were lying at anchor about two miles nearer to Circular Quay. After the cargo '. ad been landed all returned to the ship, except Mr Kerry, but on the following' day "te saw Kerry on hoard. On the voyage across to; New .Zealand he observed 'that the lifeboat was fitted out to the minutest detail. The boat 'was!fitted" out' whilst at sea by the- starboard watch."' He was in that watch,-but did not help."""He did'not" jiear the ciders given, but could see the men at work.. Oars, masts,' rudder, sails, and -water breakers were placed in the boat. He did not notice any provisions. The. other, boats had nothing, done "to them. The weather was fine when the boat was lilted out, but no land was in sight. Three days afterwards" they sighted the New Zealand coast. Cape Farewell was in sight when the lifeboat, was washed, out of the davits and lost. Freke's position on' board was a- mystery, for .he. acted. as steward, and did watch on deck, and assisted the captain 'in taking the. time. He- had his meals with' the contain, the mate., and the bimtswa : n, Harding. He had been "at sea since 1877, "and knew whether a ship was well foimci. The Ariadne on this voyage was ill found, and the provisions ■ were insufficient for the .intended 'voyage. To Mr Hanloi; —He had had a long experience in nautical • matters,- and wns twenty-eight years old. After lie joined the .chip he dkl not. make particular acquaintances with any of the crew; either before or- after- the wreck-. At Oamaru four ,of them lodged', together, including Harding', "who remained for a day or two. With the exception of-Harding thor;e liylng together were the ones who complained of tbe condition of the ship. The others were foreigners. They had not concocted a story to Telate at "the.enquiry at Oamaru. and "they were not continually in one another's company, although they weie frequently together. He wap not providing the others with' -drink, and they were not v chirking heavily at Oamaru. Since the nautical enquiry he hid bst-n in- DiihedJi and on' the, coast. He had been a month idle since the inquiry, and had received nothing beyond his wage.};. The Government paid* him p-irt for his services ab" the nautical enquiry, and there was sometiring still owing:*-He had not received nor had ho been promised any money for the evidence he had given at the nautical ennuiry, and in the* present case. At Oamaru he received £3 IC_ from ihe Government.' H? was first approached with regard: to giving evidence in tC:e present ,«u«3 lasb Monday week, the 21st October. After they had been ac sea for a few' clays he was disgusted at the crew being half drank all tli'e time.- Some oi the saU were cairied away .'during the voyage,* and he was b.amedfor this by the captain. ■ The captain remarked that lie ' (witness) and three others were attempting to run the •■Olio themselves, and also said that if any of fiiem wanted any fun they could have it as -icon as they liked. That,was when they were off Wellington Heads. On the night the muins'ail split they went on deck immediately and he (witness) said that they cou.d let the whole lot go. At the nautical enquiry he stated he had stood by and enjoyed it when he saw the sails - carried away, and that was true. He did not, recollect saying at the enquiry that he had chree or four chums in particular. It was before the sail r.plit, that the lifeboat was carried away. He did not know what the lifeboat was" equipped for. but it? was done in his presence. He did not pee. whether any provisions had been placed in the boat, for he did not look. A boat could be equipped to the minutest detail oven if no .provisions had been placed outside. After being fully equipped the lifeboat was washed away" While on board he tried to stop the liquor coming into the forecastle. He had not discussed the matter of the enquiry with the other three' men, but -»c Mas stopping in th>e same house at Lyttelton with them. They had not compared notes about, their evidence. He was three days idle in" Sydney before he joined the Ariadne. , , To Mr Myers—lt was about 8 oc.ock at night wh'en the packages were taken from the yacht to the jetty. Mr' Dennis r ton. Lloyd's representative at Dunedin, first approached him with reference to hjs giving evidence, and he made a verbal voluntary i.taiement to Mr DenrLslon. Subsequent v he made a writbu: statement to Mr Tunbridge at Wellington. He had neither had any money or promise of money from Lloyds. ~'„,,» The Court then adjourned till half-past ten this morning.