SUPREME COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 11665, 25 January 1902, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

k THE ARIADNE CASE CLOSES. " MUMFORD FOUND GUILTY. ' " Per Press Association. CHRISTCHURCH, January 24. ■ The Ariadne case was resumed this ingCharles Cole, waiter at the Occidental | Hotel, gave evidence that Mumford was ! staying there in the name of Stevens, and I Willis enquired for him by that name. J. H. Stringer, Reuter's agent, said that in- October and December last £IBOO came through for Kerry from Lloyd's Bank. This closed the case for the defence. Mr Harper, addressing the jury on behalf of Mumford, said that no doubt the evidence conclusively proved that Mumford had acted throughout as a blackguard. The charge, however, was one of wilfully wrecking the Ariadne, and he submitted that there was no evidence to support that charge. Notwithstanding the lies- told subsequently, the notion that the Ariadne was deliberately wrecked did not cbme into Mumford's mind till after the first interview with Captain Willis, when he saw he had a chance of making money "out of it. There was no evidence to connect Kerry with the wilful wrecking of the 'yacht, and accordingly there was no evidence to connect Mumford. Mr Hanlon, for Kerry, said that the evience against his client was of a most flimsy character. The suggestion that Kerry was in needy circumstances was disproved, as also was" the allegation that the yacht was stripped before leaving Sydney. Capital had attempted to be made of the fact that the lifeboat had been fitted out on the vovage. but the evidence showed that it was the usual thing for all careful skippers to do. If Kerry had wanted the Yacht wrecked, why did "he not leave her on the reef at Thursday Island, instead of f oinf abroad and using his best endeavours ?o «et her off. The evidence of Mrs Downing regarding the conversation of Mumford and Kerry in- the bar was totally incredible. No greater absurdity had occurred in the plot of a melodrama than that two men should conspire to commit a serious crime in a public bar, with a barmaid standing directly in front of them, two feet away. Wind?s evidence about heading Kerry and Mumford talking about wreckirg the yacht was absolutely unbelievable, bv reascn of the fact that Wind went as one of the crew. It was most •improbable that had he known the ship was going to be wrecked he would have joined the vessel. Counsel also laid stress on Wind making no mention at the m<iU'"rv at Oamaru about overhearing such conversation. As a matter of fact, the evidence for the defence showed conclusivelv that Kerry was not en board at the time" of the alleg'ed conversation. Of three points of direct- evidence relied on—the anreement, Mrs Downing's and Wind's eviI dence—the Crown admitted that one part, ( the agreement, was false, and could not be I relied on. and learned counsel invited the j jury to believe the other two parts were just i as false, and if thev came to that conclusion, he had no doubt what the verdict would be. In conclusion, he said that if it was once admitted that evidence could be purchased in criminal cases, no one would be safe. Mr Stringer, for the Crown, made his opening point by mentioning that several things "that the defence said they were .going to urove had not been proved or attempted to be proved. The Crown held no brief for Captain Willis, and made no endeavour to show that the line pursued by him was lecitimate or calculated to result in fair dealing or ascertaining the real truth of the matter. Counsel impressed o» the jury th;if Mumford was not charged with forgery or perjury, but with deliberately wrecking the Ariadne, and unless they were satisfied that was the case, the verdict must be not guilty. But he thought the jury would come trv'the conclusion from the evidence that Mumford deliberately put the yacht oshore. If that had been brought about bv preconcerted design, it was difficult to s"-e who that design was made with but Kerrr. for he alone had anything to gain by if. "Th;'t of course was not sufficient for the jnrv trf cnr.vict Kerry on. They must h:'ve -tvrnaer and weightier evidence. Counsel ;/lniitted that Wind's story was improbable, and also that it was improbable | that Kerry and Mumford should make an agreement in a bar. or that they had told : Mrs Downing. But to disbelieve Mrs Downing was to brand her as a disreputable and scoundrelly woman-, as Mumford was a man, and against that was the,woman's rnndttct m tti- ~J*t** bnT -W W Arvt.dm*,

in Chriotchurch when attempts were made by Mumiord to bribe her to change her storv. Regarding motive, counsel pointed out "that the men thought the Ariadne was worth £IO,OOO to a. millionaire. She was rot worth anything like that to Kerry, and there nvas the undisputed fact that a purchaser could not have been procured within a long way of £IO,OOO. He did not ask the jury.to place much reliance on the fact that Kerry had taken off personal effects at Sydney, or that spars had been landed. He asked the jury to believe that Kerry did r.ot leave the yacht en the reef at Thursday Island because he had a respectable captain on board. In conclusion, he pointed out that himself and Mr Meyers were not concerned to get a verdict, but it was their duty to assist the jury to see their way through the maze of fraud and trickery shown in the case and help them to arrive at a just and true verdict. His Honour, in summing up. said that if the jury were satisfied that Mumford had cast away the yacht with the concurrence of Kerry, both were guilty. The difficulty which made the case different to other cases was that the evidence against the accused was of a different character:. It was their duty then to bear in mind the two classes of evidence, that against one, and that against the other. Practically all the evidence in the case was evidence aganist Mumford. There was no doubt the yacht" was wrecked en May 24th. and the question for the jury to decide was whether she was deliberatelv run ashore. j

The addresses of counsel, and the Judge's summing up occupied the greater part of the day.

The "jury retired at 3.30. and returned at 5.25 with'a verdict of guilty against Mumford. and not guilty against Kerry. His Honour asked "whether the Crown would proceed with the other charges. Mr Stringer said that he would not. His Honour then discharged Kerry, who left the dock. Mumford made no answer to the question as to whether he had anything to say why sentence should not be passed on him. A sentence of four years' imprisonment was imposed.