RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3409, 24 January 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Saturday, January 24. (Before J. P, Maitland, Esq., R.M.) THE LOSS OF THE SURAT. Captain Johnson was brought up this morning, on remand, under the charge brought against him on Wednesday last. Mr Haggitt (Crown Prosecutor) prosecuted ; Mr Stout appearing for defendant. On the charge being read over, Mr Haggitt said he wished to withdraw it and proceed with another one containing the same particulars as the first, but differently worded and a little more verbose. Mr Stout thought it aa extraordinary, thing that a man should be brougbt up ou a certain charge, unreasonable bail demanded, and accused put into gaol, and that then the information should be withdrawn. Mr Haggitt said provision was made for the withdrawal, if necessary, of informations; and this new information, with two others of a similar import, had been laid and summonses served on accused two days ago. His Worship thought accused would labor under no disadvantage by the substitution, for it was really a substitution, of the new information. The first information was then withdrawn, and the new one read as follows :—“That tue said Edmund Joseph Johnson, on the Ist January in the present year, he then being master of a certain British ship called the Surat, belonging to the port of Liverpool, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and while the said ship was prosecuting her voyage from London in the said United Kingdom to Port Chalmers, in the Province of Otago, with a large number of passengers and a cargo of merchandise on board, omitted and abstained by reason of his own drunkenness, carelessness, recklessness, and improper conduct, and in breach of his duty as master of the said ship, from seeking or obtaining and refused to permit any other person on board the said ship to seek or obtain the help and assistance of the s.s. Wanganui off or near Gatlin’s uiver, in the said Province, the said steamship being then within speaking distance and able to render substantial assistance in saving the said ship Surat, which at such time was in a dangerous and leaky condition and rapidly making water from hiving shortly before taken the ground or struck on some rocks off the coast ot Ot igo aforesaid, whereby and by reason whereof the said tdtnuml Joseph Johnson endangered the lives of the passengers and crew on board the said ship, and omitted to do what he should and ought

to have done to save the said ship from being wholly lost, os through the said Edmund Joseph Johnson’s dmnkenness, recklessness; carelessness, and improper conduct she im* : mediately afterwards was, contrary to the form of the statute in inch case, made and provided.” Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr Mtout, on account of the withdrawal of the last information, applied for costs for defendant. Mis Worship thought that had they not ' been able to‘go on with the first charge, it would have been a fair case for costs ; but not where the offence was virtually the same. Mr Haggitt then proceeded to state the same. Mr Stout wanted on whose behalf. Mr Haggitt replied: On behalf of the Crown. Mr Stout apprehended that his learned friend had no right to bo there unless he appeared for the informant, as otherwise there would be no status for his appearance. Mr Haggitt, if his friend wished it, would say that ho appeared for William Edward Shury. If Mr Stput had any more objections he hoped he would urge them at once, as he (Mr Haggitt) had got as far as the information on our occasions, bat had been interrupted each time. Mr tstoUt asked that all ‘witnesses be ordered oat of Court, which was done. Mr Haggitt said he had'a number of shipcaptains present who would not apeak to the time of the accident, hut merely as experts as to the state and conduct of the captain. They should be allowed to remain in Court to hear the evidence. Mr Stout submitted that the Court had no power to make distiuctions between the witnesses. . His Worship thought it was more desirable that they should be but of Court, although sometimes in such cases they were allowed to remain.' I • . Mr Haggitt then stated the case at considerable length. The information was laid under the 239 th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854; and alto the, 618 th section of the same. It was the 239 th section, in reality, under which, the information was laid, and came under summary proceedings by the 518fch section. There were 300 passengers on the ship, a crew of thirty-seven, and a large and valuable cargo, and it was therefore the duty of the captain to signalize the steamer and avail himself of her .services iu any way— perhaps by taking off the passengers—perhaps by towing the vessel into a safe- place—perhaps to get her assistance at the pumps to pump out the vessel; iu any case, he (Mr Haggitt) submitted that he should have obtained her services. More urgent reasons why he should hav© done so were that he was never on the coast of .New Zealand before and had no chart of it.. The captain had admitted that neither ho nor his officers had been on the coast, and that his knowledge of it was insufficient to bring him along the coast into any port except that of the Rort of Otago. He was so much in liquor that he could not see the necessity to signal the steamer, and he would not allow any one to do so, although the necessity of so doing was pointed out by several of the passengers, and urgent appeals made to him to hoist an ensign or fire a gun, instead of which ho adopted a totally different course. It had been said that the hardship put on the captain was already sufficiently severe, but it was the bounden duty of those who had instituted the proceedings to prosecute him ; and to ouiy think how serious .the consequences that have resulted are, or how much more serious they might have been, was enough to remove any such thought that might have existed in the mind of any right-minded person. Anyone in charge of 350 people, and who abused the trust placed, in him by drinking ardent spirits, was not deserving of any consideration. —ihe following evidence was given

W; F. Street, Clerk to the Court, deposed to taking Captain Johnson’s evidence at the late inquiry into the wreck of the Surat.

A long argument took place as to the admissibility of ■ the Captain’s evidence, Mr Stout urging as reasons for its not being received that he was forced to attend and give evidence under compulsion of a line. 'lhe Magistrate considered, the evidence admissible, but would consider the point raised and give a decision on it on Monday. James ship-carpenter, and a passenger by the Surat, sighted the coast of Sew Zealand at about half-past twelve or a quarter to one oh the afternoon of the 31st December.' There were about 270 passengers on board, besides a large quantity of .railway irop, casks and cases. *ihe ensign was hoisted to the Wanganui, contrary to the Captain’s orders, and pulled down by his directions. It was hoisted again some timeafterwards, but the steamer seemed to take no notice if it. She wou*d have been two or three miles off. The vessel’s head was altered. Had not this been done she would have probably intercepted the steamer. The pumps were kept going after passing the steamer, wholly by the passengers. The rest of the evidence was similar to that previously given, and the cross-examination was deferred.

Mr Stout: In this case, being a summoned case, the question is whether to.issue a summons or to to adj mrn the case. His Worship ; I am fully acquainted with the section of ihe Act. X am not bound to order the Captain to find security. It is optional with me whether I order him to find Security. Jt seems to me an ordinary case, but rather more important than usual. Mr Stout, submitted that the bail could not exceed more than the penalty in which defendant could be fined, and that was LIOO. He thought his learned friend would bear him out on that point. Mr Haggitt said the only interest he had in fixing the bail was to secure defendant’s appearance. If his Worship, would fix an amount large enough to secure his appearance, he would be satisfied. • His Worship thought the amount well considered in the first in ntance. He could therefore not fix the bail at less than L2OO, and two sureties of LIOO each. Mr Stout : That simply means that he must be kept in gaol. He is a stranger here and is therefore placed at a great disadvahtage. As far as the other magistrates were concerned, defendant might have commenced an action against them for asking too much, and he might do so yet. He asked that the amount be now fixed at LIOO for his own recognisance, and two sureties of LSU each. . dis Worship considered a personal recognisance was merely a matter of form. Mr Stout : Then I ask that your Worship fix defendant’s recognisance at L2OO, aud the two sureties at Lsl) each, in which case it would probably be found. His Worship thought that if defendant could get them for LSO he could also get them for LIOO. Ihe bail would therefore be required u defendant’s own recognisance of L2UO, and two sureties of LIOO each. Ihe ca.se was then adjourned till 12 o’clock on Tuesday. Captain Johnmn was almost immediately afterwai ds admitted to bail, Messrs K, Wilson ana John Barnes entering into the necessary bonds.