THE ARIADNE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 11872, 25 January 1902, Page 5

THE ARIADNE CASE.

KERRY FOUND NOT GUILTY. MUMFORD SENTENCED TO FOUR YEARS'IMPRISONMENT. - [BY TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] CuniSTcnuECH, Friday. In the -Ariadne ease yesterday Mr. Skerrett, addressing the jury, said it had been urged that there had been preparations for the wreck. It would be shown that spars had been removed with the permission of Lloyd's surveyor,' and the goods sent ashore v, ere almost entirely Kerry's effects, left because Kerry had to stay in Sydney on account of litigation. With regard to • ale ° overinsurance of the vessel, it wou.d bo shown that she had cost £3000 to build. Was probable that a great insurance firm like. Lloyd's would insure without careful examination? Captains Willis and Quill knev, nothing of the value of pleasure yachts. As for the navigation of the Ariadne, Captain Mum ford found himself off the coas had then sailed east for three hours, and then imagined himself 16 miles from shore, but, as a matter of fact, , he had underestimated the current, and was not so far on, an a m consequence went ashore. The nautical mquiry had thought Mumford partly to b.ame, and had fined him £15, but had considered his explanation reasonable. Counsel then called evidence. Robert Crouch said ho had been a pilot at Oamaru. The coast off the Waitaki Liver was most decidedly a dangerous one. Many ships had been wrecked there. The beach could be discerned four or five miles out. The sails were spread out on the grass when ho saw them; They were in fairly good condition, some being nearly new, and seemed ample in quantity. The rigging was as good i as ever ho saw, and apparently complete. The value of the yacht afloat as a yacht lie would put at from .€1530 to £2000. l'hc blocks, on the yacht were extraordinarily good. . , Peter Palleson (Tiimru), Captain McLellan (adjuster of compasses), -Q. L. ope nee (master mariner), P. L. Thompson (solicitor), of Sydney, and John Glen (A.8.) were examined, the latter, who had joined the Ariadne in Sydney a week before she sailed, giving evidence to the effect that most oi the things removed from the yacht were Kerry s own personal effects. Q The Ariadne case wa.r. resumed at the {supreme Court to-day. '/ • . Mr. Skerrett called Charles Coles, waiter at the Occidental Hotel. Ho deposed that the accused Mumford was staying there under the name of Captain Stevens from. June 3 to July 18. Captain Willis saw him sometimes two or three times per week. Inquiring for Mr. or Captain Stevens on one occasion, witness saw Mumford in the sittingroom. Mumford asked for a drink. He was sitting at the table writing when witness returned with the drink. _ Mumford said ho had a very particular job on, and had to magnify everything as he wrote it. He had a magnifying-glass. .' Witness saw the word " agreement," with thick uown strokes, on a- piece of white paper before Mumford. • .' , John Henry Stringer, agent for Reuters, staged that he had received in October and December £1300 for Kerry. Of this, £800 ? was paid here and £500 in Auckland to Myers. On October 18 he paid £300, on December 27 £500, and on December 31 £500 in Auckland. The money all came from Lloyd's Bank. Witness' firm wired, to Lloyd's Bank at Kerry's request. This concluded tho dcfence. Mr. Harper, for Mumford, addressed tho jury." t Mr. Ilanlon then addressed tiio jury on behalf of Kerry. It must be remembered that none of the alleged confessions of Mumford were evidence against Kerry. It was suggested first that the ship was deliberately cast away, and, secondly, that Kerry had procured Mumford to do the wrecking. They •had to remember that if it could- be proved beyond all doubt that one part of the evidence was paid for and tainted, the rest of the evidence might bo paid for too, and was just as dirty, tainted,, and unreliable. _ It had been proved that one part of tho direct evidence—that was, the documentwas false, and he invited them to believe that the other two parts, the statements of Wynd and Mrs. Downing, were just as false. Evidently Mumford was prevailed on by Captain Willis to get certain evidence, and ho agreed to do it at a price. His Honor said that there was no suggestion that Captain Willis had nursed Mumford for purposes of a criminal trial. Mr. Hanlon said lie did not mean that, but he would say that as a result of nursing him for another trial Captain Willis had really nursed him for tho present one. . Mr. Stringer, in replying for the Crown, said he admitted that the force of what, tho other counsel said, that if a man was sufficiently evillydisposed to give false confession in the first instance and then forgo a document with which to back it up, tho jury must say how far •he had come into contact with witnesses, but it was only right to say the." jury could not believe that Captain Willis had done anything except- what he believed to bo his duty and could not conceive that he was doing anything that might lead to _ fraud or to the manufacturing of false evidence. Mr. Stringer then dealt with the case against the accused. Tho Judge, having summed up. at halfpast three the jury retired to consider their verdict and returned at twenty-five minutes past five m. The foreman, in answer to the usual question, said that thfcy found Mumford guilty, and Kerry not.guil'v. His Honor asked whether the Crown would proceed with tho other charges. Mr. Stringer said that ho would not. His Honor then discharged Kerry, and Mumford made no answer to the question as to whether ho had anything to say why sentence should not be passed on him. His Honor: Tho sentence of the Court is that you be imprisoned for four years.