THE TROUBLE ABOUT A MARINE CERTIFICATE.

Evening Post, Volume LVII, Issue 21, 26 January 1899, Page 5

THE TROUBLE ABOUT A MARINE CERTIFICATE.

CAPTAIN YON SCHOEN COMMITTED FOR TRIAL. The Magisterial enquiry into the charges in connection with the issuing of a coastal master's certificate to Captain Jas. Jones was resumed before Mr. H. Eyre Kenny, S.M., at 10 o'clock this morning. The charge taken was that against Captain G. Yon Schoen, of having on 19th July, 1897, assisted in making a false representation for the purpose of obtaining for Captain Jones a certificate of petencyMr. Gully appeared for the Marine Department, and Mr. Skerrett for accused. Mr. Gully said that it had been stated that the Minister had waived certain qualifications in the case of Captain Jones. It was not a matter that was material to the case, but he merely wished to say that he was instructed that the statement had arisen through a mistake. Mr. Gully added that the case for the prosecution in this charge was closed. Mr. Skerrett asked that the case be dismissed on one ground which was plain and conclusive. Captain Yon Schoen was charged with assisting in malting a false representation, but that had not been proved by a tittle of evidence. His Worship in giving his decision in the first case had remarked that the prosecution must rely on the report and certificate signed by Captains Allman and Edwin for the charge of misrepresentation. Taking that as being so, what connection had Captain Yon Schoen with those documents? Did he find the paper that was written on? did he write on it, or know anything at all about it? — did he know the paper was delivered or was about to be delivered'/ The evidence itself answered in the negative. Mr. Skerrett submitted that his Worship would hold that Yon Schoen had taken no part whatever in making the representation. If the charge was that Allman had conducted an improper examination then probably Yon Schoen might be charged as being concerned in it. The offence was not improperly passing the man but representing that the examination had taken place and that he had passed. The representation took place after the examination, and what connection had Yon Schoen. with it? Mr. Kenny, S.M.— lt is settled law that a man can be committed for trial for any offence disclosed, other than that with which he is charged. The accused could be committed for procuring. Mr. Skerrett contended that "procuring" meant any act, words, or conduct from which the Court might imply a request or inducement by a defendant to any other person to comm't an offence. That was substantially the meaning of the word. But there was no evidence of any request from Yon Schoen to Allman— absolutely none. Mr. Skerrett challenged the prosecution to produce a tittle of evidence of any communication between the two. The evidence was that when accused found the paper had been used, hegit once communicated with the Chief Clerk of the Marine Department, and told him of the astonishing fact. There was no evidence of any concert with Captain Allman before or after the examination. His Worship had a duty to perform, and was bound to take th« responsibility if that duty, as here, was plain. No person could be said to have assisted in an act when he had taken no part in it. Nor could he be said to have procured an offence when it was not proved that there had been any connection, verbal or written, between the parties. Therefore, Mr. Skerrett asked that the case should be dismissed. Mr. Gully said assisting did not mean that a person must actually be present, but that he had done something by word or in writing which assisted in bringing j about a criminal or improper act. There was prima facie proof that Yon Schoen did commit acts which assisted in bringing about this sham examination, and the necessary consequence of that — the sending in of the examiners' certificate, and the issuing of the certificate of competency to Jones, The whole fraud — if he might call it such— hung together, from the filling in of the application by Yon Schoen to the issuing of the certificate. Accused deliberately prepared two separate sheets of paper, one containing answers and the other questions, and expected that they would be used by the examiners. He afterwards found out that they actually had been used. Surely, suggested Mr. Gully, he knew they were to be improperly Used. That might probably be a question only for the jury. Accused handed the forms to Jones, and left him to produce them in the examination room, and expected them to be made use of. To put it shortly, accused prepared part of the material which was used in misleading the Department. In reply to a remark by Mr. Skerrett,' Mr. Gully said that the prosecution had never suggested that there was any evidence of conspiracy. Continuing, Mr. Gully said it had been suggested that in the alternative Yon Schoen should be charged with procuring. Ma Kenny, S.M.— Yes. The difficulty of proving the original charge of making a false representation by "assisting in signing a certain "certificate" might be considerable. But still, it could be .said he must have known that a false certificate would be signed as a result of his action. Mr. Gully said that accused, although rot directly connected with the act itself, prepared the material 'for it. Procuring to commit did not mean procuring by definite request, nor by direct word or wnting. Of course, there must first be evidence, of guilty intent. Jt would surely be aa offence if a person were to prepare material for A to enable A to get B to commit an offence. Mr. Gully thought the Court could do nothing else but commit accused for trial. Mr. Skerrect replied thao the holding of ihe examination was not a representation, nor was the issuing of the papers. A person could surely not be said to " procure," when the^e v' r as no evidence of a request made in any manner. M^. Kenny, S.M.. after a brief retirement to the Law Library, said he fully recognised the force of the very ingenious <^gument raised by Mr. Skerrett. But he was not satisfied that he could take upon himself the responsibility of withdrawing the case from the Supreme Court and the jury. There was prima facie evidence that the accused had assisted. That portion of ■sbe Criminal Code Act dealing with persons party to the commission of an offence was here read by His Worship, who went on to say that there were two questions for the Supreme Court to decide— (l) Whether the preparation of those 1 papers was part of a series of acts which led to commission of this offence ; and (2) whether they were prepared with a guilty mind. Was •ihe act done lor the purpose of aiding the commission of the offence? The question as to whether there was a guilty mind or r>op would be for the jury. Bui these points were undoubtedly for the Supreme Court. If the jury found accused had a guilty mind, then he might be found guilty of assisting in the commission of this offence. Captain Yon Schoen reserved his de fence, and was committed for trial. Bail was allowed, himself in £50 and one surety in £550, Mr. Uttlejohn entering into the required recognisance.