THE ARIADNE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11869, 22 January 1902, Page 6

THE ARIADNE CASE.

EVIDENCE OF CAPTAIN WILLIS. INTERESTING- DOCUMENTS. [BY TELEGRAM.PRESS. ASSOCIATION.] , . : , Cuiustchtjuch, Tuesday. The ' hearing of the Ariadne ease was continued in the Supreme Court to-day. Mr. Skerrett (for Kerry) resumed crossexamination of Captain Willis.. "Witness said between May 1 and May 14-, the month after the nautical inquiry at Oama.ru, he received definite instructions from G. M. Denniston, Lloyd's agent at Dunedin, to make inquiries. " They were both suspicious from the first. Witness was to use every endeavour to get at the truth, but it was not suggested to get at Mumford. He communicated with Detective Fitzgerald on or about May 16, and asked him to get any information possible. Fitzgerald met witness at Dunedin station and walked to the hotel. The detective ? said Mumford was very hard up, and discontented, and angry with Kerry, and was willing to meet witness. Witness expected Mumford would need some persuasion to confess. He had not paid Fitzgerald any money' or asked any permission to use his services. This interview was the first occasion on which he had asked Mumford as to ■tha cause of the wreck, except during the salvage operations. Mumford came between ten or eleven p.m., and stayed for quite an hour, perhaps more. Mr.' Skerrett read from the ' lower Court evidence five sentences ' which witness had given as the conversation that occurred. Witness was anxious not to take an unfair advantage .of Mujnford, and when Mumford said ..that .he would tell all about it next morning, conversation was turned into other channels. His second interview with Mumford on May 29 lasted about an hour. Mumford almost immediately started telling tho story of 'the' wreck. No ••• sum of money was mentioned by witness on that morning. He had no recollection of swearing in the lower Court that he said in the morning to Mumford, " I will give you, £400." Mr. Skerrett read from the previous depositions showing that witness had so sworn. Captain Willis said that he had previously made a mistake. He read his notes of tho interview in which mention was made of a man named Warner, cook on the Ariadne, who, according to Mumford, had overheard a conversation regarding the wreck. Witness had forgotten this matter in the previous examinations. He had tried to get hold of Warner, but failed. At the second interview on May 29, witness closely crossexamined Mumford to see if he could " bowl him out," and then promised to give £400 for the written confession. Ho asked Mumford whether he had any documents. Mumford replied that he had written several letters to Kerry complaining of his treatment, and had another which he would show to witness. This interview took place in the afternoon, after he had seen Denniston. He told Mumford in the morning to come again in the afternoon. He had not previously mentioned the. second interview because he did not think it of any consequence. Mumford told him that Kerry had not replied directly to bis letters, but through Freke. He asked Mumford on the morning of May 30 whether he, had any document incriminating Kerry. He was positive that such a document was not mentioned on May 29. Ho saw Mumford in the morning and afternoon of May 29, and on May 30 Mumford said ho had a written agreement from Kerry to wreck the yacht, and that he had lost or mislaid it. Between May 30 and June 8 he frequently asked Mumford about letters or documents, and said that ,it was curious to lose such an important document as tho agreement. Mumford replied that he had told Kerry ho had lost it, and that Kerry had said that Mumford had now, no hold over him. Witness had seen letters from Mumford to Kerry, warning tho latter against "acting the goat." It was not arranged that Mumford should write this letter. Mumford volunteered to show it to witness after he had written on May 29, and a copy was taken in Denniston's office. He had not previously mentioned this matter in examination or cross-examina-tion, because he had not thought of it. Ho had handed a copy of the letter to the Crown. He had believed Mumford's statement with regard to the lost agreement, although tho letter from Mumford to Kerry which he saw said, "I may also just mention to you that you do not hold all the trump cards you fancy you do. I admit I have no written agreement from you to wreck the yacht. I know you were sharp enough not to do that." Ho had not been struck by the contradiction. Mumford showed this letter to witness, who thought it an extraordinary production, but made no comment, and asked for a copy. Mumford left tho letter and witness took it to Dennisfcon and a copy was made and sent to Lloyd's. A certificate was attached to the copy stating that the letter had been handed to Captain Willis for approval, and had been written voluntarily. Tha letter was signed " Kettle," which Mumford said was the name used between him and Kerry. Witness thought it very appropriate. A postscript was added to the letter as follows:—"On thinking it over, I insist you reply by cable at once, or I shall do what I said." The letter was addressed to Kerry at some Sydney Post Office box. Mr. Skerrett handed in a copy of the letter which was read. It was long, and in it Mumford pointed out that lie had .wrecked the- yacht according to agreement, risking his own and other lives, and that as Kerry had not thought fit to carry out his part of the agreement, Mumford would consider himself, perfectly justified in taking measures to recompense himself in away, to say the least, very disagreeable to Kerry. Mr. Skerrett pointed out the long words and free flow of language in the letter, but Captain Willis stated that he had made no suggestions in connection with the letter. Tha agreement was shown to witness on June 7 in his office, at Christchurch. by Mumford, in the forenoon. Witness asked Mumford how ho reconciled the agreement with the letter ho had written to Kerry. Mumford replied that the letter replied to the fact that Kerry had refused to give him a second agreement at Oamaru, when he thought he had lost one. On Juno 8 Mumford allowed witness to take the agreement to be photographed, and finally gave it to him on June 11. _ Witness had examined the agreement critically at the time, but had not noticed 'that some of the words, notably, "signing" and " articles," had been gone over twice. The agreement read: Sydney, February 25, 1901. I. ST. C. Kerry, agree with G. Mumford to pay as wages the sum of £12 per .month for services as master of the yacht Ariadne from the date of signing articles at Sydney, and a further sum of £400 if the vessel bo totally wrecked. (Signed) T. C. Kerry, owner; E. J. 11.. Freke, witness." Captain Willis was given the agreement and a magnifying glass, but said ho could see j.lO si sins of i#raciu£-

Mr. Skerrett . wisnea 5 them to nana rue j document and glass. to the jury, but His Honor said that was not the proper time: • 6 for. such a : course. Captain. Willis was not an expert ' and he could not have the time 1 of the Court frivolously wasted. The jury j had already examined the document once, i .Witness gave particulars of the payment j to Mumford. Witness first met Wynd, a ' member of the crow, who stated that lie | overheard incriminatory conversation' between Kerry and Mumford on May 30, and later the man made the produced statement in German. Mumford was arrested on October 8, and witness recommended lawyers to him. and guaranteed their costs. f Witness also offered to share in providing : bail. Witness valued the Ariadne at £5000, inclusive of everything on her. The wrecking of the ship, in his opinion, was not : consistent with mere negligence. Waubrow > light, under favourable circumstances, could 5 be seen for 15 miles. Tho captain should ' have stayed the ship directly he saw tho light. She struck eight minutes after Mumt fori saw the light. If he had been anything but a fool he would have known he was in danger. That concluded Mr. Skerrett's cross-examination. Mr. Harper (for Mumford) produced a document signed by Captain Willis, as follows ;—" Dunedin, May 30, 1901. I hereby promise, on behalf of Lloyd's Agency to hold Captain Mumford free from any consequences that may arise from any statements made by him. in connection with tho loss of tho yacht Ariadne." Captain Willis acknowledged the document. ~ , Re-examined by Mr. Stringer he said he had been assisting Mumford since his arrest, because his hand having been forced he felt bound in honour by this agreement to help the man. He was a justice of the peace. ... P< Frank Kochnitzki, a German sailor, who had been on tho Ariadne at tho time of her wreck, examined by Mr. Myers, repeated his evidence given in the lower Court as to the removal of goods from the Ariadne on the night before she left Sydney, the equipment of the lifeboat on. the way to New Zealand and the wreck of the yacht. _ Crossexamined by Mr. Hanlon witness said that before he assented to take the goods ashore ho was told by the boatswain that Kerry's things were to go ashore, as he was not going to New Zealand. There were laigo 'trunks and two or three clothes bags containing soft materials. Then there were a few small whisky cases and some rifles. Ackwood and Freke wero in the boat and Wynd and Wakesmith stayed aboard. It •was a big lifeboat that went with the luggage. It took about, an hour to go ashore and the distance was three or four miles. The lifeboat was carried away cither in Cook Strait or a little earlier. To His Honor: He saw tho Waitaki River, but could nob sa.v exactly when. William Henry Ives stated that he was the proprietor of the Dawes Point Swimming Baths, in Sydney harbour. Accused Kerry came to seo witness, and asked permission to leave somo goods that he was bringing from the Ariadne in Neutral Bay, about a mile and a-halfaway. Witness said lie could leave the goods if he removed them next day. Kerry brought the goods in a fair-sized ship s boat that evening, with four or five men. Witness saw tho goods unshipped. _ lhere were a portmanteau, boxes, bags, a barome- : ter, and apparently soma sails or awnings. Later he noticed a chronometer in one of the boxes, two binnacle lamps, and some rifles. ' Thero was altogether about a ton of goods. 1 Somo of the packages were very weighty. Kerry removed the goods in a two-horse . lorry next day. _ Mary Beck, wife of William Prasnr Beck, said Kerry came to her house on Monday, he having hired a room, on Sunday, and he ; left the Saturday after the news of the wreck . was received. She repeated her evidence as given in the lower Court, with regard to ; the stowing of the goods as described by the : other witnesses. Cross-examined by Mr. Sker- ' rett, she said tho barometer was a. small one. The wharf at which tho goods were landed 1 would bo convenient for taking them to her I house. " . / ' ' . „ ~ - Hermann Wynd, another of the crew fvt ' the Ariadne, repeated the evidence given in ' the lower Court. The yacht lost so many ' sails on the way to New Zealand that she ' had not enough "for proper navigation. They ' were nearly starving 011 the Ariadne. Witness was cross-examined at length by Mr. Harper and Mr. Hanlon with reference to an [ alleged conversation between Mumford and Kerry, which he overheard.. _ . Thomas Henry Clarkson. said lio was in I command of the. ship Sir. Henry ;in March : .last. On March 22 he was off Bank's Penm. ;• .sula, and saw the ' schooner inshore of him, sailing • along under very short canvas. He thought she had blown her sails away. lit) did not know her name.' Ho went close to ' her and asked if she had been in trouble. ' Ho got -no - reply. .- Ho went . close because 1 ho thought she' wanted some' sails. She was hot under command, owing to the shortness of-the sail. If he had been in charge of the yacht under such circumstances he would naturally have applied for assistance. . It was not 'safe to proceed along the coast in such a state. He had spare sails, and ' would have supplied, them if he had been ' asked.' The time was "between four and five o'clock in the afternoon, and the weather ' was good. ~ , , . , -r, 1 Arthur Henry Bosworth, olerk in the Bank ■ of New Zealand, said he had had constant ' experience in handwriting and signatures. The signature on the alleged agreement, " T. C. Kerry," and on the nautical inquiry i depositions were, in his opinion, written by the same person. He saw no indication of | any portion of the alleged agreement having ' been written at a different time or by a different person.' To Mr. Skerrett: The unsigned agreement ' without the incriminating sentence found on [ Mumford at his arrest was not, he thought, ' written by the person who wrote the signed ; agreement, though there was some doubt in his mind on tho subject. In certain parts ' the signed document looked as though the | writing had been traced o\er, but he thought [ that the moisture of the gum on tho back j had affected the writing. Signs of running , showed in the last and incriminating words. ' The Court adjourned until to-morrow.