THE ARIADNE CASE.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11548, 2 April 1903, Page 5

THE ARIADNE CASE.

APPLICATION TO THE ENGLISH APPE-AL COURT.

[fnoM ocn srEciAi, cosuisaroifDiart.) LONDON. February 20. 'Die ci.so ~f tiie yacht, -_ia__., whioh it will b-j icmeinkrrd was alleged to havß been cast away vi {__ coast 0 f New Zealand, is now occupying the attention of tho English Court.-. Tire case is knowa here as Kmy v Burr. In the Court, of Append lat* Monday the plaintiff appsakd fiv.i_ iln vl _cr of Mr Jusikv Bruce, dirvoring a comrrussion to issue ■-.. tna defendant's imrtance to New Zealand to examine «, _____*_ vmoak there. Jhe crder was mado at- the inMtonceof tjw d«in__. H Mr Burr, an u_d_r-wn.t-r, and was appealed ag_j_* by the l»lii._t_ll, Mr Kerry, <._ the ground that there v. as no iK-.v?*uy tor a ce-mmjsskm, as all the witiu.-: ; :.s it was .ought, to examine had, with one oxo.-pu-.n. already been co.i__nod in legal prextvdings m New Zealand. He

was witling that the tthcrihand notes of iheir evidence should b_ r_«d <„ the coming trial, but 111-.* other s.•*.',„ object, thai, th* uoees wire pr.va.e and privileged. In suppon, of the* appeal, Mr Hamilton, K.L. tuid he a-ppeeiie.t against tlie order on the ground that with a singlo exception everyone, of the wi__x*ses in question had be-tii alieuly cxan.irr.il in legetl proec*di-igs arising wit, of thi*. very case in New Zealand, ti_.d as he Wxis willing to allow the shor; hand tvlw than taken oit.iieir evidence to b.. read at the trial, he asked that the order for a tomii-istdon shuuld not- bj made. Ti.a action was brought, upon a policy of insurano- up.vn a yacht, which the plaintiff had bought lor 2000 •guineas, and insured for £20,000. Ti-.*. defendant pleaded co_ce.iliiieut and fr.-uduler.. misrepresentation, ii_d ailegc-i t„ii.t Mr Kerry, Captain Mumfca-d, who kid charge of th-e" yacht, and Mr Freke had conspired to cui«t the vessel upon tho const, of New Zealand, and wreck her. Tlie

int.ui-._iee covered a, p->rkxi ending April, 1901. Tlie Court iound that tlvs yacht, waa lost t-lirough negligent navigation, but that, there was no inacerral to supperrt the suggestion that slie had Ivmi oasfc away. Capt-aia Willis, however, got into TOmmir__catior. with Captain Minn fold, wlio seemed to have sugges'Led i.ia.t ii h- was paid lie could tell fromctiling. Authority was obtained from London to pay Mtuuford £400, _____ lie then alleged t lint he had beo. hired to wrreck the. yacht. The Governiiii.iit expert who examined the document mi which this rested, came to tlie conclusion that tho chiuso quoted proniisii.g tho £400 had been nftciwards .sandwiched in between tibe real body of the document, and Mr KeiTy's signature, and the jury acquitted' Mr Kerry and Mr Frekc of tlie charge. Captain Muuiford. who was indicted for casting the vessel away, was couvieied on his own confession, and was now in prison. Mr Kerry than oame to England, and took -top- to recover the ins-ranee. Lord Jiistke Vaughnn Wi'llkum said thai prima facte thi respondent had got to justify the commission; ha'-hoidd luive liked to sco the evidence of one of the witxt£t-_se-»—the least tainted. Mr Scrutton (for the respondemt) remarked : It is Kitid the ve.js?l was wrecked within a mile of n light, which could be seen fifteen miles away. Your lordiship may soe

the notes. Lord Justice Vau_bar_ W'dliaiTus: Unlesa you arc prepared to let your opponent look at the shorthand notes of the five days* trial, I will mob look at them. It in an abuse of tho use of privilege to keep back these notes, and it sets me agstmst your application strongly. .Mr Sci'titton replied: I agree, my lord,' that if it is a note of what Ims token place in public court, prima facie it as nob privileged. But it is a private note by a private solicitor in the case. It was obtained simply for tho trial. At this stage the notes were handed to the Judges, and the ease was adjouTned untt' next Monday. ■ ,