THE JONES CERTIFICATE

Star (Christchurch), Issue 6467, 22 April 1899, Page 6

THE JONES CERTIFICATE

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUPREME COURT. INCIDENTS OF THE CASE. THE CERTIFICATE CANCELLED. [From Our Cobrespondent. I •• WELLINGTON, April 21. The absorbing interest in the .case of the Solicitor-General versus James Jones, has been shown during the two days which the hearing has occupied by the large attendance of jaienibers of the 1 Bar, Government officials •and persons interested in marine business, fhe sitting took place in the room used for Chamber business, the space in which is inconveniently cramped, and a large number of people had to be content with standing room Troniinsnt among the public was Mr George Hutchison, M.H.R., who was industriously engaged in taking notes, presumably for use in the approaching session of Parliament. Practically the whole headquarters staff of the Marine Department were present. The proceedings to-day were ' fertile of surprises. To start with, Captain Ailman, late Nautical Examiner, when called upon to give evidence for the Crown, objected in the- following terms: — "I am advised that anything I may state now may be used against me hi this case, perhaps further on. My statements previously have been used against me in the Supreme Court." The point was a knotty one. The lawyers looked at each other across the table, and for a moment there was a dead silence. " You put it .on this ground," suggested Mr Justice Denniston, " that the answers might incriminate you'/" "Unless I gefc an indemnity from the Bench that my evidence will not be used against me," said the witness, adding later on that, having a wife and family to support, he did not care to face the risk of two years in gaol. Then the lawyers put their heads together, and, after a discussion on the question whether Captain Allmau might not be liable to a prosecution for conspiracy with others to obtain a certificate for. Captain Jones by fraudulent mfans, the Judge^^fftyie Chamber in order lo consult his learnsdMirother, the Chief Justice, on the point raised. After v. few minutes he resumed his seat, and ruled, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, that he could not exclude Captain Allman's liability under section 32 of the Criminal Code, ana the witness was excused from giving evidence, upon which the Captain, evidently considerably relieved, walked away to the -far end of the room, and watched the subsequent proceedings as a disinterested spectator. Another surprise was the absence of-Cap-tain Jones, the defendant, who seems to have . disappeared since Monday, when Mr Gray saAv the last of him. ' In fact, the genial skipper of the tug Duchess had as mysteriously disappeared as if the earth had opened and swallowed him up, and all the threats of producing damnatory documents out of hidden recesses which were to demolish Mr HallJones and the officers of tie department seem to have vanished with him. Oaptain Von Schoen, his tutor, who showed such tender solicitude for his client in converting him into a fiifst-class navigator by methods which the Court had under review, also was absent, having, it is said, gone to Dunedin. The Hon W. Hall-Jones gave his evidence in an open, straightforward manner, as if he had nothing to fear or conceal, explaining away sinister construction put upon, the envelope bearing the words "Jones, Duchess, permit exam, master." As I informed you some weeks ago, the real significance or otherwise of this writing turned upon the question whether the word was "permit" with the accent on the "i," or on the " c," a nice distinction, upon which the learned Judge remarked that it was a good illustration of the subtleties of the English language. It was stated thai/ this was written as a mere reminder for the officers of the Department, which, by some means, got into the wrong hands, and was used as if it had been «. peremptory order to permit Jones to be examined though he did . not possess the requisite qualifications. . The Minister insisted on relating his connection with the business in his own way, and thus saved much valuable time. The cross-examination failed to shake his testi- ■ inony. He was asked as to a certain telegram he was supposed to have received from the Premier just before the latter set out for England, and immediately Mr Hutchison and the little knot of friends about him brightened up as if something very dreadful was about to be disclosed. The witness admitted that the telegram was not recorded' as an official document. It came with another telegram which he desired to keep, and he happened to pin the two together. Pressed to produce the telegram, he read it, as follows: — "On the eve. of our departure you are~"3iofc 'forgotten. I i hope all will be well with you." Watch J carefully the expenditure. At the same time keep down the \memployed difficulty as well as you can.^ Good-bye, and God ] bless you and yours.— R. J. Seddon. Auckland, April 19, 1897." The reading of this telegram excited general laughter, in which the learned Judge heartily joined. After the addresses of counsel, the Judge summed up dead against the defence, using some scathing terms as to the action of some of the parties concerned, which be characterised as " fraudulent," " collusivo," a " sham -examination," and. so forth,, and when he concluded with judgment for the Crown, with costs, no one wns surprised at the result. Meanwhile, everybody is asking, .""Where is Jones?" * • [Pjer Press Association.] WELLINGTON, April 21. In the afternoon the Hon W. Hall- Jones was cross-examined on the question why he had not remembered the fact of Jones having passed his- examination. The witness, said that he had had a rush of business in Connection with. Parliament. He denied that he had had any conversation

with the Premier with reference to Jones before Mr Seddon left the colony. The question as to a permit for Jones to go up tor examination he left for WTr Glasgow's consideration. He had heard Mr Glasgow's evidence yesterday as to an alleged conversation they had had /with reference to this matter, and he was never more astonished in his life. Mr Gray: Do you suggest that Mr Glasgow has invented this conversation? Witness : I make no suggestion at all, but I think it an extraordinary thing that he did not, for his own protection, have the application put; in proper form and get some one to sign it. His Hoxior thought it unnecessary to ask Mr Hall-Jones to say to what he ascribed the discrepancy in the evidence. Witness : I don'b think Mr Glasgow is stating other than what ho believes. In the argument Mr Gray, for Captain Jones, declared that there was no proof of fraud. It was clear that there had been a proper examination. He contended that there was no proof of fraud on either of the two grounds on which the Court was asked to take tho certificate away, and further, that the Court had no jurisdiction. He had searched authorities, but found no precedent for the Court taking the action claimed by the Crown. MiGray submitted that . the certificate could not be" attacked, except as provided by the statute itself, (1) on investigation under Section 119 of the Act that the master is incompetent or guilty of misconduct ; (2) through casualty as provided by Sections 237 and 244 ; (3) under Section 121, where the Governor may cancel a certificate if the holder is convicted of any offence. He admitted that if the charges alleged against tlip defendant were proved the Governor might cancel tho certificate. Mr Gully, for the Crown, quoted several authorities in support of his contentions. He combated the argument of Mr Gray, and held that tho Caown had a prerogative right to cancel any license or Crown grant, and further submitted that the general jurisdiction of the Court in matters of the interest and safety of the public was quite clear. Mr Gray, in replying, said that the certificate was uofc a grant from the Crown, but was a license issued by the Secretary of the Marine Department under powers he possessed by statute. Mr Justice Denniston then gave judgment. After relating the cause of action and the grounds on which it was taken, he said that he was satisfied that the qualification to allow Jones to bo examined for a certificate as master of a Home going" vessel did not exist. He pointed out that it was necessary that the applicant should have possession of a mate's certificate, and have held the position of mate on a foreign-going vessel for twelve months, but this had not been done. It had, ho said, been argued for the defence that the Crown had not proved this. Well, what did they find? Jones absented himself from the Court, and the only presumption was that i he did not possess such qualification as was necessary, or other certificates than those before the Court. To his Honor's mind there was the clearest affirmative evidence that Jones did not possess the necessary certificate for him to go up for examination for a master's certificate. There could be no waiver from this certificate, and there was nothing in the Act or regulations to authorise a Minister or any other person to dispense with this qualification. His Honor next referred to the evidence, a large quantity | of which he declared to have been irrelevant, but he had not felt that ifc was incumbent on him to exclude it. The subject did not aver fraud on the part of the defendant, but misconduct on tho part of Captain Allman, who was one of the examiners. Ho thought that the defendant must have presented himself for examination knowing that he did not possess the necessary qualification. Coming to the stronger ground 1 of fraud, his Honor had no doubt that fraud had been committed, and that the Department had been induced to issue a certificate on the report of the examiners, and that the signature of the second examiner to the report, that Jones had passed, was obtained by fraud. There was no doubt, he said, that defendant had brought to the examiners a series of written questions with already prepared answers. These were supplied to tho examiners so that he could fill up the blanks himself. Only three persons were capable of giving evidence as to direct fraud. Of these Captain Allman had claimed privilege as likely to incriminate himself. The fcutov of Jones, Captain von Sehoen, had gone away, understanding that he would not be required to give evidence. The other was Captain Jones himself. It had been shown to his Honor's satisfaction that had the defendant presented himself for examination the question of fraud mighthave beori explained. Jones knew well enough that hisattendance was required, and if he had been present and written a few words the suspicion of fraud might have been dispensed with. This had not been done, and he had deliberately absented himself out of the way of compulsory attendance. His Honor would, therefore, only draw the inference which a jury would do under the circnmstances. There was no doubt in bis mind that the writing on the examination papers was not that of Jones. That was clear. The writing waa quite different from the signature of Jones, and moreover was in different ink. His Honor declared the examination a deliberate f rand and sham, and expressed the opinion that the signature of Captain Edwin, the second examiner, to the report to the Marine Department, that Jones had passed his examination, was obtained by fraud. The report which was drawn up by Captain Allman was a fraud on the department. He had, therefore, come to the decision that Jones had obtained the certificate without possessing tho necessary qualifications, and that such certificate had been issued on deliberate fraudulent representation. As to the jurisdiction of the Court, his Honor thought that it would be a most regrettable state of things if the Court had no power to interfere in questions affecting the public interests, where benefit had been derived by fraud. In matters affecting the lives and property of the people, certificates were only granted on certain conditions, and he asked whether persons 'who obtained such, privileges by fraud were to be allowed to retain them. Precedent or no precedent, he did not consider it sound law. His Honor granted the motion asked for by the Crown, which, in effect, was for the cancellation of the master's certificate issued to Captain Jones, and for an injunction preventing him using such certificate. Costs were given against the defendant.