SENSATIONAL SCUTTLING STORY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9497, 28 April 1894, Page 2 (Supplement)

SENSATIONAL SCUTTLING STORY.

A NORTH SEA COLLISION. . The English Admiralty Court is not often occupied with so strange a case as that which has recently been decided in ib after several days' hearing. On the 17th August last the fishing smack Fortuna was sunk in the North' Sea by the steam trawler Ibis, which ran into her in broad daylight. The owner of tho lost vessel was Mr. Henry Smethurßt, an Alderman of Grimsby, who was also manager of the Ibis for the owners, the Messrs. Hamilton. The action brought in the Admiralty Court was for damages for the loss of the smack, and was taken on behalf of Mr. Smethurst and the other members of an insurance club. SENSATIONAL STATEMENTS. It was the defence which introduced the sensational elements. The Messrs. Hamilton alleged that the collision was in truth no accident, but an intentional thing ; that the skipper of their boat ran her into the Fortuna of set purpose ; but that he did so on the instruction of Mr. Smethurat. Tho sinking of the smack wae in facta villainoui'i conspiracy, concocted by its owner for tho sake of the insurance money, and Harry Rumbold, master of the Ibis, was his tool, paid for the purpose. But here a remarkable element comes into the case. Harry Rumbold is not forthcoming as witness or otherwise—for the sufficient reason that he has been hung. He murdered an unfortunate woman last winter, and baa paid the penalty of his crime. But when he was under sentence of death ho mad e^ charges against Smethurst, which were written out and signed by the prisoner. INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. Tho document was offered in evidence in this trial, but the judge refused to receive it. No doubt he was right. This was not a case of the admissibility simply of the testimony of a convicted criminal. Ib was the admission of a written statement made by such a person not under oath, without cross-examination, and in the absence of the person accused. Ib was suggested by the witnesses for Mr. Smethurst that this alleged revelation was nothing more than a dodge of Rumbold in order to obtain a respite ; and that is nob only conceivable, bub likely. Failing the reception of this evidence, which would have been the strongest portion apparently of the defendant's case, other testimony was given as to Smethurst's friendly relation] with Rumbold. He had got him restored to his place on the Ibis when he had been dismissed on one occasion. He had also contributed to the expense of Rumbold's defence on the charge of murder, and had given money bo his mother at that time. These things, however, are quite consistent with bis close acquaintance with the man whom he had to do with as manager for his employers. If Smethurst had employed Rumbold to run down the Fortuna ib wonld be natural that ho should stand his friend in his trial for the grave crime. But he might befriend him in this without any selfish motive, and it should be said that Smethurst was a man of good repute, against whom no charges could be made apart from those raised against him in this case.

THE VESSEL INSURED. The question of insurance was an important one. The Fortuna was insured for £975. The defendants failed to show that Smethursb could have made any profit by losing his vessel. They themselves had offered to. settle the claim for £800 ; and other testimony put the value of the vessel at £1000 or £1100. Besides this Smethurst was himself a member of the insurance club which had insured his smack. It is not easy to see how he could clear anything out of the transaction, especially if he had to pay Rumbold £120 for his share in the conspiracy. As for the actual cause of the collision it xvas shown that the steering gear of the Ibis was out of order at the time and that it was quite consistent with all the facts to attribute the disaster to pure accident. Yet this recital of the leading points does not entirely dissipate the strange and sensational atmosphere which enveloped the case. VERDICT FOR THE PLAINTIFFS. The jury apparently found little difficulty in coming to their verdict, for they were only absent form court for a quarter of an hour. They returned a verdict in favour of the plaintiffs. The Messrs Hamilton will have a heavy bill to pay in addition to the sum sued for, but they had nothing but a pecuniary interest at stake. It was very different with the plaintiff Smethurst. He was compelled to defend his character from accusations of the gravest kind ; and if he is as innocent of them as the jury have found him to be, he is certainly entitled to some commiseration, for even a favourable verdict does not rid a man of all the consequences of being mixed up in such a trial.