SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 12411, 22 March 1911, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

(Before- His Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS. When the Court resumed at 10 o'clock •defendant continued under crass-exami-nation. Defendant complained that four witnesses who had given evidence yes terday regarding plaintiff's share hao not spoken truthfully. Defendant explained that ho was clear worn-out yes terday, and could hardly think. He also explained there were several mat tcrs he wanted to shield. His Honor: There is no occasion tv be sentimental m these matters. Defendant stilted that after the rupture with plaintiff he had been willing to put him back on tho Swan as master at a wago of £4 per week if he received his ticket back. Defendant was also cross-examined about other details. Charles H. Cranby, shipping agent, Napier, deposed' that he had been m terested m a number of trawlers at Napier, including the Swan, fuel lor which cost about £7 10» per week. He had the vessel for sale at a. net price of £500. Plaintiffs statement that he had f been m negotiation with him for the purchase of the Swan previous to his going to Napier with defendant was untrue. It was further untrue, that m consequence of such -negotiations ho reduced tho price from £650 to £500. He only knew defendant m the sale of the boat. Defendant told him that he was buying the boat, and plaintiff was to take the vessel to Gisborne. Witness explained the working of tho "share system." It did not entitle the holder to a Bhare m tho bait. Witness added that the industry was rather unfortunate lately. Ho had not informed Messrs Clare and Clare that plaintiff was a likely purchaser. Messrs Clare and Clare had made a claim for £50 upon him for commission, but he did not recognise it. Joseph O'Oonncll, master mariner, Napier, stated that m September last he was running tho Swan on behalf of the last witness. Witness deposed that he had seen plaintiff and defendant at Napier, where they had inspected the vessel. Questioned, plaintiff told him that he had come from Gisborne with a man who was going to purchase a trawler, and that he (plaintiff) ,was there to protect his interests. In a subsequent interview plaintiff stated that he had absolutely nothing whatever to do -with the taking of the boat from witness, but that defendant (Bell) had bought her. Plaintiff also told him he was going to be master for defendant. He gave witness to understand he was going to work her on shares.. He tele phoned to Mr Cranby for instructions, and' -was informed that the boat Was sold to .Thomas Bell, of Gisborne. Witness also deposed to the, ruling ' rates of wages and details of the "share system. Cross-examined, witness admitted haying formerly been m the police force m Gisborne,. and that he was dismissed from the service m 1899. William D. Bell, farmer, brother of defendant, deposed to a conversation between the parties Cottenll and himself regarding dividing the working of. the trawler into feur shares. Plaintiff declared that nothing less than half a share would do him. By Mr Burnard: Tho conversation ended m- no fresh arrangement being made. He understood from defendant that plaintiff had "a working share. He did not, however, understand what this meant. , Robert Breingan, formerly engineer of tho Swan, gave evidence regarding the payment of wages to himself and plaintiff. , _ L John Howie, Collector of Customs, deposed to having received instructions from the Marino Department m reference to plaintiff's certificate. Ho was instructed to give plaintiff notice he was not to act. Plaintiff was entitled to command, a, boat of 15 tons between Portland Island and Cape Kidnappers only. x, i i Counsel proceeded to argue the legal position of plaintiff's certificate. This closed the hearing of evidence for tho defendant. Plaintiff, recalled, gave evidence to having made certain payments at Napier m connection with the fitting up of the boat. ' \ Counsel procoeded to address tlw Court. His Honor reserved judgment.