THE ARIADNE CASE

New Zealand Mail, 22 January 1902, Page 36

THE ARIADNE CASE

( HRIbIC'HI RCH. January 20. i The hearing of the Ariadne case came on at the Supreme Court to-day. Mr T. W. Stringer. Crown Prosecutor. and Mr M. Myers appeared on behalf of the Crown; Mr A. C. Hanlon and Mr C. P. Skerrett for the accused Kerry. Mr J. Cassidy and Mr H. C. Harvey for the accused Freke. and Mr G. Harper for the accused Mumford. On the application of Mr Skerrett, as some fresh evidence had come in. the case was adjourned till 2 o'clock. On resuming, the first of the original five ciiarges was taken. George Mumford. master mariner, of Lyttelton, Thomas Caradock Kerry, of Sydney, traveller, and Eric John Hussey Freke, also of Sydney, were charged that they did. on March 24th. on the East Coast of New Zealand, at a point one and a half miles south of the Waitaki river, cast away a certain sailing yacht known as the Ariadne. All three pleaded not guilty.

t Mr Stringer, who opened the case for the Crown, outlined at length the evidence that would be called against Mumford. °

Mr Harper objected to Mr Stringer dealing in detail in his opening with Mumford's confession. According to his view, the confession was obtained through inducement.

Mr Skerrett supported the objection. His Honor said that if circumstances did arise to give reasonable ground for ruling tiie confession inadmissible, the damage done in the opening might be irreparable. lie recognised that MiStringer’s opening would be considerably curtailed, but lie must ask him to make his opening as general as possible. Mr Stringer then outlined the evidence to be led. He called John Fitzgerald, cadet in the Magistrate’s Court at Oamaru, who gave formal evidence with reference to Hie Customs inquiry on the wreck of the Ariadne. In reply to Mr Skerrett, witness said the log-book had been returned. Captain Stewart Willis. Lloyds’ surveyor at Lyttelton, repeated his evidenco as previously given. The Ariadne was an old boat—twenty to twen-ty-five years—of a maximum value of £SOOO. Mumford’s navigation, if honest, had been utterly careless and unsafe. In consequence of information received, witness went to Dunedin on May 28th and saw Mumford in the Grand Hotel. Having sent for him, witness pressed Mumford to tell all about the meek, and after a time he said he would come and tell all about it next day. The next day he came. At this point his Honor allowed Mi* Harper to cross-examine with regard to tho admissibleness of the confession-' In reply to Mr Harper, Captain Willis stated that Detective Fitzgerald was not employed by witness, hut was asked to get information. Witness was alone in a room with Mumford. They had not more than one whisky and soda apiece. Mumford was absolutely sober at the interview. Witness gave him no money that night. He asked straight out : ‘•'Did you wreck that yachtP Mumford said, “ I decline to answer.” Witness was at this time employed liy Lloyds, but had no authority to offer Mumford a reward. He got authority from Lloyds’ agent at Dunedin. He was not in a position on May 28th to offer a reward. He got his authority to offer £4OO on the afternoon of May 2Dlh. Mr Stringer then resumed his exami-

nation, and Captain Willis detailed Mumford’s confession, and said that it was afterwards put in writing. Mr Harper objected to the written confession being put in.

His Honor said that on amending the__ law in 1895 no confession was admissible which had been obtained by methods calculated to induce untruths. Although he had some doubts on the point, he would for the present rule that the confession was not admissible. Of course, later circumstances might alter the position. Captain Willis then gave evidence I with regard to the production by Muniford of the alleged agreement to wreck the yacht. His instructions had been i on no account to bring a criminal section. but to collect evidence to defend a !’civil one if brought. He had most uuI willingly given up bis documents and 1 information.

Cross-examined by Mr Skerrett: He was not Lloyds’ agent in Christchurch. He got no salary, but was paid according to his work. Fees were usually paid by shipowners and averaged about £2OO or £3OO per year. Tiie Court then adjourned till to-mor-row morning.