GIRL PAT CASE

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 53, Issue 3843, 7 December 1936, Page 2

GIRL PAT CASE

UNROMANTIC THEFT. TERMS OF HARD LABOUR. THE TWO ORSBORNES. London, October 24. All the romance that has been constructed around the adventures of the Orsborne brothers on board the Girl Pat was stripped to shreds at the Old Bailey. Story telling was given a back place when the men were brought into the dock to answer the mundane charge of “stealing a vessel, valued at £3600, the property of Marstrand Fishing Co., Ltd., Grimsby." The Orsbornes pleaded not guilty, and their trial before a jury lasted foui days. But the jury required only 35 minutes to agree that the men were guilty and Mr. Justice Singleton needed less time to sentence George Black Orsborne, the skipper, to 18 months’ hard labour, and his brother, James Orsborne, to 12 months’ hard labour. In his summing up, Mr. Justice Singleton deprecated the sale of the men’s story. “Some newspaper or Press agency or company,” he said, “has agreed to pay to the two prisoners, and the two people who were with them, £5OOO for their story, and some part of that money has been paid. I cannot help feeling that a little thought upon the part of any responsible newspaper proprietor would show that that is against the public interest. Whether the two prisoners be guilty or innocent, the property of someone else, of a company, was being used by them without permission, accounts against the owners were being incurred certainly at two ports, and George Orsborne, the captain, clearly knew that he was acting directly against employers’ interests.”

Referring to two witnesses for the defence, the Judge remarked: “One of these men, Harris, was said by various witnesses to be often in a state of inebriation or drunkenness. He himself, when he was asked by counsel said: ‘I am scarcely ever sober when ashore.’ That is one of them. The other is Stephens, a boy of 17, who was signed on this boat as cook at £1 a week, and before that had been n farmers’ boy. According to the evidence each of these persons had been receiving £5 a week from the solicitors for the prisoners. I think this is a very undesirable state of things.” The Company’s Position. In spite of the cold, legalistic attitude of the Court, considerable interest was taken in the case and the adventures of the men, who were arrested in Georgetown, British Guiana, after six weeks on the ecean. To assist the jury to adopt the correct attitude towards the incident, Mr. P. Scott, K.C., for the prosecution, asked them to put out of their minds anything that they had read or heard about the case. “This was not a romantic venture, a sort of cheerful buccaneering venture,” he said, “but merely a base breach of trust by the man to whom the owners had entrusted the ship for its safe conduct. He took the vessel away and used it in various parts of the world for his own benefit and ultimately deprived the owners of possession.” The first evidence of importance was given by Mr. John Moore, managing director of the Mustrand Fishing Company. Under cross-examination he denied that he had suggested that George Orsborne should take the Girl Pat out to sea and not bring her back as his company was in difficulties. Questioned by the Judge he was emphatic that there was no suggestion that Orsborne should get rid of the ship. The company was in a good position, having increased its capital from £4OOO to £BOOO in February, and the Girl Pat was one of four new boats, only ten months old.

A statement that there was no intention on Orsborne’s part to get rid of the vessel was given by George Jefferson who was in charge of the engines on board the Girl Pat until he was “given the slip” at Dover. George Orsborne’s Story. But it was upon this point that Mr. John Flowers K.C., based his defence of the Orsborne brothers. “I hope you think I put it clearly to Mr. Moore, as I intended to, that he did suggest to Captain Orsborne that this vessel should be got rid of, and that the only reason for that was to get the money from the insurance company,” he said. “I suggest it is incredible that men in the. position of the two defendants should suddenly, from being decent persons, turn into criminals and put themselves into a position where it would not be safe for them to return to their native land.” The adventurous spirit of George Orsborne was indicated as soon as he began to give evidence. He admitted that at the age of 14 he went into the Navy by saying he was 17% and volunteered for the Dover patrol, served while he was still 14. and was wounded at Zeebrugge. ' His statement was that one day he met Mr. Moore in his office when Mr. Moore said: “I want you to take the ship out and see she makes the big-

gest trip she has ever made.” By that, said Orsborne, he understood that he was to get rid of the ship. He was told that the company was well covered, and that he would get 15 per cent. The ship in question was the Gipsy Love. They had set out in it, but had returned and transferred to the Girl Pat. Mr. Moore asked him whether he was prepared to go on with the job, and Orsborne replied that he was. The boat was in need of dry docking, and had no wireless. When, however, he found out at sea that there were no rockets on board, he decided not to carry out Mr. Moore’s suggestion.

Under cross-examination, Orsborne admitted that he had proposed to fly to America from Georgetown, and to return to England by liner. Asked who was to pay for the aeroplane, Orsborne replied that he “had sold the story of the Girl Pat for £5OOO to the ‘American Continental,’” 200 dollars of which had been paid on account. He had given the other four men £lOOO each, and they had been paid £5 a week. Statement Repudiated. Orsborne denied that he had spent many hours nailing up boards along the front of the ship to alter its appearance, or that he nailed three-ply over the name Girl Pat wherever it appeared. He admitted, however, that he had placed wood over the name on ore part of the ship. Concerning the man Stone, who had been left at Dakar, Ofsborne declared that Stone had not gone further with them as he “had the wind up.” There was nothing wrong with him at Dakar, for he had been dancing with black women. Captain Orsborne agreed that he had made a statement to an official in Georgetown. He signed it, although it was not read over to him. Mr. Scott read this passage from the statement: “We pulled out of Dover with storm signals against us with the intention of scuttling the ship." Orsborne: The official wrote that in his own words. The Judge: Did he write what you told him?—No. Did you sign the statement containing that passage?—Yes, but I never mentioned scuttle to that man. Orsborne added: “If you don’t mind my saying so, I had seven or eight bottles of beer and several drops of rum, and so had the official who wrote the statement, and how it has turned out in this way I don’t know.” Mr. Scott: Did you ever intend to scuttle the ship?—No. What did you take it out for? — Well, I had not made up my mind. What did you tell Jim?—l told him I was going to take one out and she was not supposed to come back again. Did you tell him “This time it is a paying proposition”?—Yes, I believe I did. Running Up Bills. “I told the police officer practically nothing of what is written here,” Orsborne said later. “It sounds more like a school story than anything.” Did you say that when, you found there were no rockets you decided that Moore had done that on purpose? —Well, no, I didn’t say that to the police officer. Did you believe that Moore had done it on purpose so that when you put the ship on the rocks it would be less likely to be got off? Yes, I ran away with that idea. Did you say you would make Moore pay for not putting rockets on by going to ports and running up bills against him for which he would have to pay?—Yes. What little punishment did you inflict upon the owners at Corcubion? —-I never knew.

Would it surprise you that the figure was £235?-—Yes. That would be quite good punishment for Mr. Moore for sending you without rockets? —It would be a bit. James Orsborne, the brother, said that when the Girl Pat set out, he stowed away on her. “While we were at anchor,” he said, “my brother called us together. He said words to the effect that ‘I suppose you fellows can see there is something fishy about the way the ship has gone out?’ It was agreed by all that there was something fishy. I asked Dod (George) what he intended to do. He said he did not know. When I was alone with Dod I repeated that he was a darned fool, and I did not think he should do it. He told me not to worry about it; he had not made up his mind whether he would do it or not. Disturbance at Dakar. “We discovered that there were no rockets in the ship when a storm blew up. Dod said, ‘lt looks as though Moore intends to get rid of the ship and the crew, too.’ While we were lying off Jersey, Dod said, ‘Well, we are off our course now, so we might as well make an extended holiday of this, and give Moore a little of his own medicine, and pay him back for the dirty trick he has done.’ ” Orsborne added that he was referring to there being no food and no rockets. Cross-examined, Orsborne said that he did not think it crazy to attempt to cross the Atlantic with one day’s rations, 'in any case, they had to get out of Dakar, because the niggers were after them. Mr. Scott: Were they swimming after you?—l never stopped to ask them if they could swim. (Laughter). Why did you say they were after

you?— We had a bit of a row in a barber’s shop the night before, because we would not buy some tobacco they had stolen from an English ship. One of them talked about “white pigs.” My brother resented it and hit the man under the chin. The barber had to sneak us out the back way, and the next day they came round the ship wanting their revenge. Were they shooting at you? Is that sarcasm? They were armed with clubs. Were you going to fish for pearls on the way?-—Who was going to do the diving? Isn’t it a fact that one of the things your brother had in his mind was fishing for pearls?—No, that’s silly. Hunting for treasure on a coral island, was that in his mind?—lt is fantastic imagination. Mr. Justice Singleton, in his summing up, asked the jury to suppose a lorry driver, who had short journeys to go, disappeared with his lorry to the far north of Scotland, altering his lorry so as to make it unrecognisable, and using it for three months for his own use. If he were arrested for stealing the lorry and said: “I did not intend to steal it, but to take an extended holiday,” what did the jury think would happen. “You can only judge this case on the evidence of what is done and what is said and using the ordinary intelligence given to all of us. People in foreign ports in supplying goods rely on the signature of the master of a British ship. Let those who see anything to be proud of in the exploits of this man reflect whether or not his activities have helped in that regard."