MARINE DEPARTMENT SCANDAL.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 11131, 25 January 1899, Page 4

MARINE DEPARTMENT SCANDAL.

CAPTAIN ALLMAN COMMITTED. [BY TEtEOEAPH.J "Wellington, Tuesday. In the S.M. Court to-day Captain Allman, Nautical Adviser to the Government and Chief Examiner of Masters and Mates, was charged with a breach of the ; thirty-second section of the Shipping and , Seamen's Act, 1877, which provides for security in granting certificates to mariners. The offence is one of indictable misdemeanor, and the accused is charged with assisting one Jnrnes Jones to wrongfully secure a certificate of mastership. It appears that Jones presented himself for examination on ttre 19th July, 1807, Captain Alhaan and Captain Edwin being tha examiners. After the sight and color teats were concluded, Jones was provided with the usual Bet questions on arithmetio, charts, &o. Mr Gully, for the Department, said it was clear from Captain Allman's own statement to the Department after the question was brought up in Parliament, that the accused accepted as set questions certain questions and answers which Jones brought with him, and which it would be proved were in the handwriting of Captain Von Schoen, at whoso school Jones was proparing for his examination. Captain Edwin waß present whea the papers were brought by Jones, and advised Captain Allman to destroy them. The latter proceeded to do bo, when Jones exclaimed, " For God'a sake, don't do so ! I give you my word I propaued them myself. I shall lose my billet, and my wife and family will suffer." Captain Allman admitted to the Department that in a weak moment he gave way. Captain Edwin was then alosent from the room, and a portion of tl»e already pre»- 1 papers accepted as genuir" .^ared written by Captain ir -« questions copied by All*- ■ »«& Sehoen were then v .—«Mi) and the papers must -«vo been taken afray» as the •mswera were In Captain Von Sehoen's handwriting. Captain Von Schoen's originals were detained by Captain , Allman, and when requested by the De- ) parfcment for an explanation as to the j conduct of the examination theße were i attached to his statement. Captain Allman admitted that Captain Edwin had no knowledge that the prepared papers had not beea destroyed. > Lateb. > At the Magistrate's Court Mr Glasgow, , secretary of the Marine Department, and 5 Captain Edwin, were examined for the > prosecution against Captain Allman. ; The former's examination was merely ] formal. > Captain Edwin, who was one of the j examiners, said Captain Jones brought j an envelope into the room and gave it to Captain Allman. Up till then no part of the examination had been held. "Witness > asked Captain Allman what the envelope 1 contained. He opened it, and said it 7 seemed to contain examination papers. "Witness then told his colleague to tear them up, and he did so, and the pieces fell on the floor. Then the examina--3 tion proceeded as far as the vision I test, and the color test was also j gone through satisfactorily, as every--9 thing was in order. Then witness 3 went into his room adjoining to attend to j his weather observation duties, and he } saw no more of the examination itself. 7 Witness saw Captain Allman after the examination was finished, and the latter said the examination was concluded. Witness thought Captain Allman also said Jones had passed, and as the papers were made out he asked witness to sign them. Witness went into the examination room and looked over the papers to | see_ that the forms were proper, and as re--3 quired by the regulations. So far as witness could recollect the questions were all in Captain Alhnan's handwriting. Witness then signed a certificate on an application j form. The questions were always written j in the room, some of them before the 5 candidates arrived, ao as to prevent delay. ' Captain Jones was called, but as a t charge is pending against him, arising 3 out of the same question, he declined to J answer questions. J; This olosed the case for the prosecu- ! tion. For the defence Sir Kobort Stout said there were two objections to it being , held that there was a case to answer; 1 first as to the procedure, and secondly as I to the merits. Dealing first with the ! question on its merits Sir Robert con- ) tended that there was no False represent- [ ation. What was the misrepresentation I relied on? He presumed it was in a written l certificate signed by Captainß Edwin and Allman. Tnere was nothing else. The examiners passed Jones. It was not for the Bench to say whether the man was properly passed or not. It was no offence , in the Act to pass a man wrongly. If t Jones was passed wrongly the certificate | given was that he was passed by examinai tion, therefore no false representation had been proved. Captain Allman aight have done wrong in accepting work done out* side the examination room by Jones. Sir i Robert Stout also contended that the case | should have been gone on with under , summary procedure before a magistrate. i For the Crown, Mr Gully said [ there was proof that the examination was a sham. At any rate it was for a jury to say whether it was or not. He submitted that the examinaj tion was really afraud viva voce. The l examination was only as to sight and ' color, and that was an element for a j jury to consider. ) The Magistrate decided to commit the acoused for trial. Bail was allowed, himself in .£SO, and two sureties of £25 each. , The oase against Captain Von Shoen ) for assisting in making false representa- | tions re certificates was only partly heard. ) It has been adjourned until to-morrow.