RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3413, 29 January 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, January 29. (Befere J. P. Maitland, Esq., R.M.)

THE LOS 3 :OP THE SURAT.

The hearing of the charge against Captain Johnson was resumed this morning, , Stout called ■ .

Wm. Hargraves, and asked him this question—Have .you, outside,this G.urt or on any occasion, said to anybody that you wished some of the children on the Surat had been drowned, so that Captain Johnson might have been had up for manslaughter ?—.No, 1 have hot.

Frederic Isitt said he was op the poop at the time of the Wangauui heaving in sight, and bad therefore a good opportunity of observing the state accused was in, which was one of intoxication. Witness could not swear to what he said to accused as to signalling the steamer, but he took part in the general conversation. Cross-examined : Did not hear accused ask what use it would be to hoist a signal as the steamer would not be able to see it.

Captain Orkney, deputy Harbor Master of Otago, stated' that he was master of a vessel twenty yeats ago; and had made three voyagta to New Zealand. If in hj similar position to that of accused on the morning 'of -the wreck, witness would consider it his duty to communicate with a passing steamer. The inducement would be stronger if the ship’s boats were insufficient to hold all the people on board. The' : necessity would 1 be still ®^l9°S er if he had never been on the coast before. r J he steamer might have towed her into Molynenx Bay if assistance had been asked,' which would have been a better place than Catlin’a Bay, being more sheltered from the prevailing win. ; s. Tee passengers might nave been transhipped to’ the steamer, the captain of which could also have given information as to the c-jost to the accused. ’ He thought it would have been more-’prudent to have signalled the steamer. —• Crossexamined : If I had only four or live feet of water in the hold of- my ship and- thought I could reach my port, 1 should certainly not -isk assistance from a steamer. To the £jnch : I think the urat was in immediate danger, as a calm might have fallen, or the I vessel have fo'dhd&ed tram the leak,

R. Mailler, master of the barque Harriet Vru i age, said'he had been a master mariner fjr thirty-three year*?. Under circumstances similar to those attending accused, he thought the as-istance of the steamer should have uecn obtained . Cross-examined : If witness tbojight he could reach port by clapping on all sail, he should still get the steamer to keep alongside' iu case Of help being wanted Captams at sea do differ in their opinions as to risk. The Wanganui could have towed the Surat at the rate of seven or eight knots iu hour, and he would have"had the vessel bowwd, even if she could have sailed faster than the steamer could t'ow her~ * Would not allow passengers to take command of his ves-el or to hoist signals in defiance of his orders, but would stop them by any means. A captain might be driven out of his wits by .confusion such as must have occurred in'tbis' case, and not know what he was doing. It wo d<3 be enough to render some men temporarily insane. Mark Cohen, reporter on the Evening Star, stated that he was a passenger in the Wanganui to the Bluff on December .31, arriving there the next day. Early in the morning of January I he was on the deck of the Wanganui, which passed Gatlin’s river at about 2300r 3 am. Witpess .saw the .Surat twice that morning. Cross-examined: Saw the Surat the last time at 6 o’clock, when the Wanganui had passed her, and did not see any signal hoisted. Would probably not have seen brie' even if hoisted, as he is near-sighted. No one on board noticed a signal, but the position and appearance of the «urat were observed ; also a boat iu the water. The captain of the Wanganui was iu his cabin ac the time, and the iriate was not on the bridge,... The evidence of ibe accused, as given at the Official Inquiry, was then read. Thet following evidence was called for the defence :—John Yinok, purser and fourth mate of the Surat: I remember the steamer passing us. The captain was then on the poop. He 1 ordered me to attend to the en* I did at once. I first run up the' jack reversed to the peak and bheri hoisted it half-mast. The steamer was ori our quarter at this time. 1 bad not seen the enaign up before. He was excited, but gave his orders properly,, and perfectly, disjunct. By Mr ‘ Haggitt; I ask you' whether you will swear you did nob’ suggest to Mr Booth, or some passenger standing alongside the halyards, to distract the cap- • tain’s'atbention iri orcUr that you might hoist the ensign ?—I swear I did riot; and I will flatly contradict 'anyone who says 1 didYou fount the ensign bent to the ! halyards, and on receiving orders-merely to attend to the ensign you re versed and hoisted it;— will you swear you had not previously seen the captain haul it down with his own hands —will you swearyouhad not previouslyhearg; him threaten anyone who touched it with instant annihilation by means of a revolver ? —I will. Will you swear no one suggested to you to hoist the ensign half-mast? that 1 remember. Do you not know that tht proper signal of distress is to hoist the' ensign half-mast ? JSo, Ido not. Then youi hoisting it half-riiast was only a measure of extreme precaution on your, part?—Ex ■*ctly. If you believe that the intention of hoisting the ensign was to attract the steamer’s attention, why did you net tire one ofi the guns ?—Because 1 bad no orders. T. K. Weldon, Commissioner of Police, said Detective tihury, in laying the present informa ion, was acting under instiuctions from him; and that he (the Commissioner) had received his instructions from the Crown ■sOiici or.

Abram Foresbawe did not see the ensign hoisted, but remembered the steamer passing about an hour after daylight; he should say somewhere between three and ' four in the morniug. Mr Stout addressed the Court at considerable length How was this matter brought before the Court ? It was proved beyoud 'doubt that tbe charge was brought bv the General . Government because of pressure from without. Some.portions of the Press, against all precedent on the part oj the British Press, had, whilst a criinitial charge was pending against Captain Johnson, tried to ’ write him down a? much as possible. The Government had also adopted the very unusual proceeding of only i seeking a summary conviction. In the case of Captain Opllard, of the Sussex, in Vic- ; toria, the right of trial by jury was accorded him. The Government had also placed his ; Worship in the position-a most utifair one ’ of saying “If X decide in the captain’s favor ■ I shall be casting a slur bn my brother ■ magistrates who presided at the court of inquiry.” The fact was that the Government was trying, all in its power to keep the immigration scheme popular in the Colony and beyond it, hence the denial to ! Captain Johnsoh 'of a trial by jury ; of the ; exculpatory speech of the Crown Solicitor, that the GoVernment was not acting harshly in this proceeding, when great harshness was i displayed in the manner in’which the charge was laid and carried, out. Not a single sea- , man ha 1 been palled at. this inquiry, and no proceeding was taken against Captain Johnson uuti, after the Court of Enquiry gave its decision. Out of fairness tp the captain, this charge, if intended to be maife should have been laid’at. once and before the Court of Inquiry gave its decision. The charge must, he submitted, be dismissed, because it had not been proved .that if’Capt. Johnson had signalled thO Wanganui, that vessel was in a position to have rendered’ hini subatantial assis ance. it ,could not be said that bis neglecting’to dp so endangered thb lives of the passengers, The second point was whether the Wanganui , was within speaking distance. What wps speaking dietance? The evidence made the Wanganui’s distance from the Burat between two and three miles. Could that be said to be within Speaking distance, because the charge was that he refused to seek or obtain assistance.? Now, that was expressly negatived by nearly all the witnesses, while it was conclusively proved by Vipk that, the paptaip ordered the ensign to be attended to ; and that it was hoisted in such a manner as to seek assistance from the steamer, therefore the captain’ did’seek’ assistance. , It was true that he ’ refused to fire a gun, but that was. not the charge against him. The learned counsel then commented on the evidence. It was not enough for his Worship to come fo theconclusion that it wouldhave been better if this or that thing had been done. If there was in the captain’s mind a reasonable doubt about it, pr, a difference of opinion as to whether a certain act should have been done, or hot, the case must utterly fail. If his Worship was against him, it was not a case requiring severe punishment.TJhe harshness of the proceedings was admitted ; the captain’s certificate was cancelled, and hp deprived of the means of earning his livelihood for ever! and a small fine would suffice! ' He instanced t e case of the ship Fanny, repotted in the last, ‘ Home News,’ where with sft in his hold, and the water gaining at the'rate of 6in or 7in an hour, he declined to signal a parsing steamer, because he thought he would be better able to make bis port than lose time by heaying-to, with only a chance of the steamer being of assistance. In that case no such action was taken as in Captain Johnson’s.

His Worship said he - would lake time to look over the evidence, and give his decision to-morrow morning, after the police cases.