Supreme Court

South Canterbury Times, Issue 7063, 8 February 1893, Page 2

Supreme Court

TIMARU—-Tuesday, Fbb. 7. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Denniatou.) (Case Continued.) IAEOBNY. 0. Gruhn and J. Mabin, charged with stealing Elginshire Salvage. Alexander Osborne, boiler-maker, Fort Chalmers: Was engaged to sort the salvage, at N.M. and A. Co’s, store, and some on the beach. Saw some tarpaulins on the ship, and later on saw them covering machinery on the beach. Saw the wire rope taken from the ship by accused. They put it into a boat, and asking what they were going to do with it, they said it was given to them by Knewstubb, and the boat needed ballast. Knewstubh had left the ship, and was then in Port Chalmers. Was in charge after Knewetubb left. Said if Knewetubb gave it to them he could do nothing in the matter. Gave them no tarpaulins. To Mr Hay: The rope came in the last boat, net the punt. The boat did want ballast. Other wire rope came ashore, including a life-line to the ship, that belonged to the Port Chalmers company. Some other wire rope was left on the wreck, and so far as he knew, if it had not been wanted for ballast in the boat, this coil would probably Lave been left on the ship The conversation about the rope took place on the ship, not on the wharf. Nothing was said about discharging the rope at the wharf. As a fact the wire rope was not discharged. The boat was sent to the moorings with it in. It did not strike him as extraordinary that Knewetubb should gi e away such things. Knew of no other articles given away or otherwise disposed of by Knewetubb. The refrigerator was removed from the boach on the 12th Nov. Did not make the catalogue, but put down a few things ha saw and that were not entered. Did not notice that the taupaulins were not catalogued. Did not toll the men the wipe rope was only ballast, and they could have it. It was coiled on a small winch reel of the ship, but was coiled down roughly in the boat. David Fisher, sbipjoiner, a member of the Salvage Company,saw the freezing machinery, winches and some gear on the beach at the end of November, covered with ship’s hatch tarpaulins ; could not say how many. Could not swear to the identity of those outside the court. Could say nothing about the wire rope or fenders. Never gave away or otherwise disposed of anything. To Mr Hoy 5 Helped to make up the catalogue, only to describe certain articles, the yards, etc. Several people hod a hand in making up the catalogue. Several articles were omitted from it.

J. S. Keith, ship chandler, Timaru, valued the tarpaulins at £8 each, the rope at £5 10s, the fenders at 2s 6d each, present values. To Mr Hay : Ships’ tarpaulins are readily saleable here. Three had never been used, the others not much. Farmers use the very same articles.

Alexander Crawford was recalled to give some evidence regarding the “ London Salvage Association,” a committee of the underwriters and this closed the prosecution. He only knew the name of one of them.

Mr Hay, in opening the case for the defence, submitted that the ownership bad been 1 laid in four different ways, and not one of them in the right way to support the indictment. After some dissuasion with Hie Honour, Mr Hay said the proper person to attribute the properly to was the master of the vessel. Mr White replied, and His | Honour ruled decidedly against Mr Hay. There was a sufficient property in the salvors if the goods were taken from them, aad in the company if stolen after landing and delivery to them. Mr Hay then sketched the case for the defence, and called first one of the accused. Christopher Gruhn : Had been a boatman at Timaru 15 years. Was emplojed by the Salvage Company. Remembered the machinery coming ashore and the tarpaulins, which were put over the machinery. Heard Mabin ask Knewstubb if ho would give him one of the tarpaulins, and Kuewstubb said they could have the lot if they looked after the machinery till it was sold, 'ihe tarpaulins were not sold with the machinery, but were left there. They were not paid for looking after the machinery, but did so every day for several weeks, putting on the tarpaulins when they blew off, and keeping the youngsters off. Cook arranged with Mr Ralph for storage of the things, and they were carted up in the middle of the d »y and put into an open shed. Did not see them carted up himself. The wire-rope was put into the lifeboat for ballast. Other wire rope was left on the ship, and some thrown overboard Heard Mabin ask Osborne what he would do with the wire rope when they were discharging the lifeboat ; Osborne said it was no good and tbey might keep it. It was left in the boat, and next day they took it out at the Moody wharf and had it carted up to White’s, about halfpast one in the day. It was false to say it was taken up in the night time. When the detective spoke to him about the things, denied that they were stolon ; told him they were given to them, and they claimed them, Swore positively that Knewstubb gave them permission to take the things. Mr White cross-examined at some length. Had not mentioned Osborne before, but Knewstubb } considered it was all the same, Knewstubb or Osborne. Accused gave somewhat confused answers as to eome points. James Mabin, the other accused, told a similar story. He asked Knewstubb to give him a tarpaulin, and Knewstubb said he would give them the lot if they locked after the machinery, and they did look after it, weekday and Sunday. The two fenders were used in the punt all the time, and were left in it with other things—four boat-falls, some lines, three anchors, and half a keg of molasses Got an order on Straohan for the things left in the punt, but that had nothing to do with the tarpaulins or wire rope. Osborne said the wire rope was no good, and saw the boat go away after discharging with the rope in it. To Mr White: Mentioned the order to Straohan when spoken to by Detective Livingstone about the other things because he supposed that would have to come out too. Did not know that the things were in White’s store till the police spoke to him about it. Did not see Mr Ralph, nor get any money from him. Asked Osborne on board fer the wire for ballast, as there was a wind springing up, and he was not going to drown himself. Did not tell Osborne that Knewstubb had given him the rope. His reference to Burns, and “ trouble," did not mean trouble ” of this kind ; it meant fighting. Edward Dunn, one of the boat party, heard Knewstubb tell Mabin they could have the tarpaulin if they looked after the machinery and kept it covered till sold. Swore positively to that. Knew the others had looked after the machinery, and bad himself chased youngsters off. Witness took the order to Straohan. It was open and he read it; “ Please deliver everything belonging to punt to bearer. The punt is not for sale just at present" Osborne said the wire rope was no good, and he saw the boat go away with it left in the bottom. To Mr White : Never had anything to do with money about the things, and so far as be knew no money had been borrowed on them. John Cook, another of the boatmen, gave similar evidence as to the tarpaulins. They looked after four boats, as well as the machinery. Witness arranged with Mr Ralph to store the things, and assisted Mr White’s carter to take them up, some time in the afternoon. To Mr White: Supposed the tarpaulins were given to the “ crowd,” though they were given to Mabin. Mabin was their boss, and he supposed be (witness) would have the same ( share as the rest. It was, he supposed, to be I a sort of bonus for endangering their lives. Had got no money on the things. Made no •

money arrangement with Ralph. Took the things to the store till they could sell them. Had not tried to sell them.

J. Ralph, manager for A. White, coal merchant, stated that Cook and Dunn asked him if they could store some stuff, and they told him what it was. He gave them permission, Did not buy it nor advance any money on it. To Mr White : If Qruhn said that money had been pot be was mistaken- Never saw Qruhn on the matter. To Mr Hay: Knew Qruhn as an honest hard working fellow. Did not know much about Mabin. W. White, who carted the things up, said it was done in open day, without any concealment. Q. Stumbles, contractor, called as to character, said that he knew both accused to be hardworking industrious men. This closed the evidence at 4 30 p.m. Mr Hay and Mr White addressed the jury on the evidence and the probabilities, and His Honor then summed up. The evidence as to the principal item (the tarpaulins) wss decidedly in conflict! The two accused and two others, who, Hie Honour said, were morally in the same box, swore to a single simple story, that Knewstubb gave them the tarpaulins on condition that they looked after the machinery. Knewstubb on the other hand denied that he had done so. He would not deny that Mabin might have asked him for a tarpaulin, but be denied that be gave him any. Had the men invented that story, or bad Knewstubb forgotten the conversation, or falsely denied it ? It was not, however, necessary for the jury to accept either state moot absolutely. There might have been something said which Knewstubb did not think amounted to a giving of the things, but which the others did, and if the jury thought so, they would acquit the accused. The surrounding circumstances were dubious. On the one hand it eeerre I unlikely that property of such value would be given away, and on the other was the fact (bat the tarpaulins were not included in the catalogue. But then there seemed to have been no one specially engaged to make out a catalogue, and the last revision of it was by a man who put down things ho saw that were omitted, and as the tarpaulins had been removed be did not see them. As to the wire rope the same class of questions arose. Either Mabin or Osborne had sworn falsely as to the first | conversation about T, whilst Osborne admitted that it was treated as of no value on the ship and would have been left if it had not been wanted as ballast for the boat. His Honour told the jury not to take any notice of the fenders. The jury retired at 6,15 and returned in about 20 minutes with a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoners were discharged. PEOBATB, BTC. Probate of the will of the late Ann Ellon 1 Maopherson was granted on the application of Mr Raymond, and of that of the late W. Bryars, of Temuka, on the application of Mr Salmond. tetters of administration of the estate of the late Janet Agnew were granted to W. Q. Agnaw, on the application of Mr Raymond. A lunatic’s estate, Mr White applied, on behalf of the “ committee" of John Miller, a lunatic, for leave to raise money on mortgage of the estate, Mr Hay said tl\,e next of kin, for whom he appeared, made no objection. The question of costs of the next of kin was held over.

The Court adjourned at 530 till 10 this morning. [By Telegraph.) DUNEDIN, Ebb. 7. In the Supreme Court to day, argument was heard in Chambers on a motion on behalf of a Southland defendant in a Picturesque Atlas case, to hare the action tried at Invercargill. Mr Justice Williams made an order for a (rial at Invercargill. In doing so he said that plaintiffs need nol have come to the Supreme C-urt unless they had liked, there being another tribunal provided by law for the trial of these cases. No doubt they were within their rights in coming to the Supreme Court, but the Court was perfectly justified in taking into consideration the existence of a competent tribunal close by the red lence of defendant to which plaintiff ought to have resorted. Argument w as also heard before Mr Justice Williams on an appeal against an order made by District Judge Hawson, sitting in bankruptcy, by which, notwithstanding that Alexander McKillop had filed in bankruptcy, proceedings under the Imprisonment for Debt Abolition Act, 1874, should be allowed to go on. McKillop had been sued in the Supreme Court at Invercargill for breach of promise, and a verdict given for £25. An order was made by Mr Justice Williams for payment of tbe judgment by instalments of 16s per week. McKillop then filed, and Judge Rawson made an order allowing proceedings under the order by Mr Justice Williams to go on notwithstanding the bankruptcy. 3he question on appeal was whether Judge Eawson elioidd have granted leave to proceed under the order. The'appeal was dismissed, Mr Justice Williams saying that there was practihally only one creditor, and where the claim arose out of disgraceful conduct on the part of bankrupt tbe Court was perfectly justified in allowing proceedings against tbe bankrupt to continue.