THE ARIADNE CASE.

Evening Star, Issue 11663, 23 January 1902, Page 4

THE ARIADNE CASE.

Counsel for the Crown yesterday afternoon put on the witness stand Annie Adeline Elizabeth Dunning, nee Vincent, w/io had been barmaid in the Port Jackson Hotel. She repeated her evidence with regard to a conversation she overheard between Kerry and Mumford. She also detailed an alleged attempt by Mumford to suborn her. Witness was cross-examined at considerable length. Detective Marsack gave evidence as -o the arrest of Mumford. On searching accused's lodgings he found typewritten copies of two statements, receipts for registered letters, and a number of other documents. He found and produced a book with this entry: "Wrecked British yacht Ariadne, Sunday, 8.20 p.m., March 26, 1901, on Waitaki Beach, south Waitaki River one and half miles, New He also found a copy of a letter purporting to be from Mumford" to Kerry, in which the following sentences occurred: —"I know that you ought to make me a very substauti tl present for all I have had to go through on your behalf." He then referred to Captain Willis, whom he had "never had had any use for," and continued : " I should have thought from what you said that we should have all been in London before this, ami starting our other little experiment. It won't do for us to go in the same ship, or someone w/>uld spot us, and then good-bve to all mv prospects and £AO,OOO. It is no good writing about it until we have got to London, or until you settle with me over this last one." On October 9 Mumford started to speak of the wreck. Witness cautioned him, but he said : " With what you have got there (pointing to the documents) it is no good trying to defend myself." Mumford then said that he. was to have wrecked the yacht either on the West Coast or in Cook" Strait, but that as the boat got smashed, and he did not wish to lose life, he pottered away down the coast until he found a soft spot He stood hi during the afternoon to have a good look at the shore, and then came back after dark and piled her up "nice and sweet," so that all hands could jump ashore without danger. Mumford had further stated that he had left some of his gear in Sydney, :s he did not wish to lose it if the ship broke up. On other occasions Mumford spoke very freelv about the wreck. At an interview between Mrs Downing and Mumfo.-J in the Criterion Hotel, overheard by witness and Detective Goulder, ho heard Mumford say: "I went into Captain Willis's office the other day for money, and had three or four purposely watching me, and they can prove that I was there. We are all on Kerry's side now. He is away m Sydney, and he is paying all expenses.'' Later'he said: "You need not remember that conversation about £4OO, and need not recognise Kerry. If we can get you on our side we will all get out of it." When the detectives were discovered Mumford said: "I was only trying to get her to tell the truth." Atthe police station a short -while afterwards Mumford said: "1 don't know who are my friends now. They said that if 1 went with them I would only have 'o answer a charge of forcery, and that it would he better to meet this than the other on 6'" , r, .i Detective Goulder, of the New South Wales police force, gave evidence as to the arrest of Kerry and Freke in Sydney. He saw Mumford in Christchurch. and he then said: "I am afraid that I have made a fool of myself. I wish there was someone who could give me advice." Witness said he would not mind talking to him as from man to man, and would, of course, consider the conversation private. They then talked for two hours. On the following Monday Mumford told him more, and witness said: "Well, you have told me more than I can carry, and I ask you in the interests of justice to relievs mo of my promise not to tell in evidence what you have told me." Witness, in answer to Mr Harper, said that he saw Mr Harper on that Monday at the Police Court, where he was appearing for Mumford. Mr Harper had a conversation with the accused, and the latter relieved witness of his promise of confidence. Mumford did not say that Mr Harper had

told him not to Bay another word to the detectives. Witness had found Mumford very talkative, but considered him in possession of his senses. Mr Stringer then recommenced bis examination, saying that he would merely ask for specific parts of the conversation. Mr Harper and Mr Skerrett objected that all the conversation should be narrated. ' Goulder then said that Mumford had said that a mistake had been made in arresting him. If they had waited they would have got them all—the " blaeJrfeUow," Walsh, and Wragge. Mr Skerrett again ob-jected. Mr Stringer said he would leave these conversations for the present, with the right to recall Goulder. To Mr Skerrett: Boyle, a private inquiry agent, had beeen present at the arrest of Kerry. Witness told him not to come near, or to interfere, or to speak He found about £IBB on Kerry at the time of his arrest Boyle was investigating the circumstances of the wreck. Neither Boyle nor any other person looked through the documents found on Kerry. Witness did not refuse to give Kerry a receipt for the documents, but would have done so had he been asked. Claude Ferrier, who had been sent to inspect the wreck by Captain Willis, gave evidence as to the condition in which he found the vessel. , Malcolm James Miller, shipwright, stated that he saw the Ariadne about a week after she was wrecked. He went to report on the advisaWeness of launching her. It was too late then to do so. She could have been got off, but would have sunk. He went all through the ship. He would value her at the outside at £5,000, but she would not fetch that sum in the colonies. To Mr Skerrett: His experience was local only; ho had never built anything larger than a five-ton yacht. He had never bought or «old ships. He knew what they were worth from other people. The Ariadne was built of pitch pine, oak, and teak, with probably American elm at bottom, and was copperfastened. The copper of the vessel was of first-class quality, and it was worth about £SOO All the lead he could see was about fifteen tons. The building of the hull would cost about £2,500, the cabin fittings £I,OOO, the masts and general fit-out another £I,OOO. , , , • Herbert James Hart, who had given evidence in the lower court, was next called. He began to narrate the dmnmstances under which he met Kerry and left England in the Ariadne. . Mr Skerrett objected to the evidence as irrelevant and unnecessary. Mr Myers urged that this evidence went towards the question of motive and the condition of the ship. His Honor said that he had grave doubts as to the admissibility of this evidence. Mr Myers then said that he would not tender it. At this stage the proceedings were adjourned. „ CHRISTCHURCH, January 23. The trial of Kerry and Mumford was reBumed this morning, when Detective Goulder was recalled. Ho said that whilst m custfly on January 4 and 6 Mumford told him about a registered letter which Dorwood had received, purporting to be bona-fide correspondence between Mumford and Mrs Downing in Sydney, in which directions were riven to Mrs Downing as to what she was to say and do on Mumford's behalf; that this letter was " faked," and the dates false. The object of this "faked" letter was to show that Downing and Mumford _w«r« working together, so ae to prove that Kerry had been concerned in wrecking the yacht. H. W. Bishop, stipendiary magistrate, produced an unopened registered letter addressed to Mumford, which was handed to him consequent on the issue of a search warrant. A difficulty here arose as to what to do with the letter. Mr Stringer did not want to open it, but ...

Mr Harper claimed that 'it was a privileged document, and the Crown Lad no right to seize it. The point was ultimately reserved, and the letter in the meantime ordered to be retained by Mr Bishop. Charles H. W. Willes, master of the Ariadne on her voyage from Cherbourg to Sydney, said that when hto left, the vessel at Sydney her condition was not good. Her sails were out of repair, and the rudder was not in good order. Most of the permanent fittings had been taken down and stowed in the after cabin. Captain Willis (Lloyds's surveyor), recalled, said that before being arrested Mumford had suggested that if by any chance he was convicted in connection with the case the underwriters should pay him so much per year. No amount was mentioned, and witness never made any reply to such a preposterous proposal. Mumford told him that he had written a letter to a lady friend in England before the yacht left Svdnev, telling her of his intention to wreck the Ariadne. His reason for so doing was that should anything happen to him this friend would have a hold over Kerry, and get the money that Kerry had promised him (Mumford) for wrecking the yacht Witness suggested that Mumford should write to his friend and ask her to return the original letter and envelope in a registered cover. John Mill, of Tort Chalmers, who purchased the wreck of the Ariadne, said he had gone to value the yacht afloat for commercial purposes or for breaking up. He valued her at £2.000. He had saved 28 tons of lead and 20 tons of pig iron ; 20kms of lead and 80 tons of iron were still in the shingle. By Mr Hanlon : Witness thought that the Ariadne would have cost about £30,000 originally.' She would depreciate 10 per cent, iii value each year. This closed the oase for the prosecution.

Before the defence was opened Captain Willis was recalled and cross-examined by Mr Hanlon. He had said that he had never commanded a sailing vessel before he took chnrge of the Ariadne. The yacht had grounded on a reef off Thursday Island, hut came off all right. Kerry was not on board when she grounded. No damage was done to her on that occasion. [Special to tot? Stab.] The case* for the Crown was c'osed this morning, and His Honor granted the application for an adjournment until 1.30 p.m. to give counsel for the defence an opportunity of examining tie evidence. On resuming at 1.30 p.m., His Honor said he had decided, with reference to the registered letter, that it should be handed to counsel for Mumford to deal with, as he considered him the proper person to have it, subject to his undertaking that he would preserve it until (if necessary) the question of the right to it had been decided.

After Captain Willis had been further cross-examined by Mr Haulon, the defence was opened. Mr Skerrett, who, in addressing the jury, pointed out the extreme gravity of the charge, and the necessity therefore for clear and convincing evidence of the accused's guilt. The case, as jn-esented to the jury, had some extraordinary characteristics. The documents which had been considered the main evidence in the case Mere now admitted to be forgeries. It was an astonishing thing to him that the Crown had not discovered this fact before. The investigation conducted by Captain Willis was calculated to produce fraud and lying. Captain Willis was desirous of accepting anything that would show that the wreck was intentional. The document certainly was a forgery. Why was it forged? If Mumford had been telling a true story, why should he back it up with a forged document? All the evidence had come from the same tainted source. A curious hiatus in the Crown's evidence was that Detective Fitzgerald, who had .arranged the interview between Captain Willis and Mumford, was not called. After the interview, which lasted five minutes, a written confession was produced and £IOO paid for it. The one wholesomo document in ihe case was the letter that Mumford had written to Olsen. The only sentence in that, letter telling against the accused was: " You can, perhaps, guess what it is." He would meet this in the proper place. The letter was that of one blackmailer t« another. He urged that the letter which Mumford wrote to Kerry in Captain Willis's Toom had never been intended to reach Kerry. At all events he would .prove that it had never done so.

Mumford was a man of no character; and he was blackguard enough to desire to get money at the expense of liberty. Mumford was carefully nursed in Christchurch. He (counsel) would show that it was while Mumford was staying at the Occidental Hotel, Christchurch, that the so-called agreement was altered. Three other letters (written by Mumford to Kerry and never nested) with' regard to the alleged overheard conversation between Kerry and Mumford were submitted. There was evidence of an extraordinarily strong family resemblance between the stories of the man Wynd and the woman Downing. Each was fuu and explicit, and not a mere vague reference. Kerry was not on the ferry steps at eight o'clock on the morning on which Wynd stated that he had overheard the conversation; he was in the city aQ day seeing several of the Crown witnesses. He had not been on the ship at all. Why did Wynd go with the ship? Surely his own life was valuable to him. Why did he not mention the conversation when he had quarrelled with Mumford after the nautical inquiry? Mrs Downing's story was equally improbable. Kerry and Mumford were supposed to have discussed the scheme with her standing a few feet away from them. Turning to Olsen's story, he said that Oben bad gone to Mr Thompson, a lawyer at Sydney, who acted for Kerry, with a man. named Day, and had demanded from Mr Thompson £2O that he said Kerry had promised him, saying that he had know ll of the intention to wreck the yacht. The whole thing had arisen through Captain, Willis's ill-advised offer of £4OO, but the jury should remember that not even against Captain Mumford himself should all his admissions be accepted. He had been ready to say anything in order to get the, £4OO. Referring to the general circumstances, counsel said it had been urged that there had been preparation for the wreck, but it would be shown that the spars had been removed with the permission of Lloyd's surveyor. The goods that had been sent ashore were almost entirely Kerry? personal effects, which Were left because Kerry had to stay at.Sydney. With regard to the insurances *i the vessel it would be shown that she had cost £30,000. Was it probable that a great insurance firm, like Lloyd's would insure without careful examination. Captain Willis and Mr John Mill knew nothing of the value of pleasure yachts. As for the navigation of the Ariadne, Mumford had found himself three miles off the coast, and then sailed east for three hours. He then imagined himself sixteen miles off tho shore, but «s a matter of fact he had under-estimated the current. He was not so far off, and in consequence went ashore. The nautical inquiry thought he was partly to blame, and fined him, but considered that his explanation was reasonable. Tie first witness called for the defence was Robert Crouch, pilot at Oamaru, who said that the sooth-east wind and current off the Waitaki River set strongly into the coast. On, the night the Ariadne went ashore there was a moderate sea, and about half a gal© of wind. The current was setting in towards the Waitaki, and would have been flowing from two to three miles an hour. It was quite safe for the Ariadne to have gone within two or three miles of the coast. He would have done it himself.