WILFUL DESTRUCTION OF SHIPS AT SEA

Southland Times, Volume I, Issue 40, 27 March 1863, Page 6 (Supplement)

WILFUL DESTRUCTION OF SHIPS AT SEA

A rfrunvknble trial has ivoenHy taken place at J,ivrrponl. A shipowni vof that town was indicted f'^r fi-iouimi-l y cimmi^iv.l- | ! intr and procuring tin. 1 Piaster of one of his ! Vessels to set fie to brr with intent to tip- ; j fraud certain underwriters. '1 he. cireim- | i stances untiev which firs was made- ' were as fuliow : — ui t lie con !•<*■* of l-tsf j j summer ;irj u-lv'-vt iscmcut was published i ■at Liverpool, ofu'i-in^ a rrwav! of i."2(s<l j ! nut! a f."t:i"s pfirdnn to any person who ; I 'houid give such infirm.'-, inn as should j ■ lead to thfi de'ccfio:! and consiciion ol > | .any on<; who had v-iifui y ,-md >■• Hh a : j iVao iKiKnt inient destroyed any Bummi j I ves-e!. In consequence, of this advertise- ! I nv.Mit, an app icaiiun was made, to ihe i shipowner who w;:* tried Ml Liver- ; j pool of a very eir.jjniur kind. It w.:n ir. ;' | the shape of a letle? i'roin ;i nsan v-ho h."'d j formerly been in his employ merit us the | mus'er of several » e-sc!.-, ;md its purpo t , was (o obtain ihe Sft'h'int-ni. "{' a chiim ! | a'tieo-ed to fiG clM'*, in d> fmilf wh'-veofihp I J w riter threatened, in i';r;i/.^ <>i' • lie in! vcrti.se- ! ' { ment, lo expose their joint viitany. j I Thomas Jnnsit'.-iovi, who wr»!e this Iv'hr j iI in 'Jk- lif'^inr.ini of Auu r n:=,t h^t, was im i ■ Dieiliii'fly c-]Mi<;t"i with a'temjitin^ t > tjx- > lerr inoiu'V '\Y threatening to act-use hi-, i l former emp«.-yer of felony, and f:r this ' j oU'eiice he w,is ti"ied at Liverpool in the ! .same month. Gf'ors/.p I'vixton, the | jier.Hon to wlu'in ho bad written i!ie toil^r, ' was the pcitui.jiil witness who ?!]>;>eare>: . against him. <\u\ he underwent a li-nj: and | 7 severe rv'.iss-cxniiiiiiHt.oM at trial uith j - respect to 'he all« <?-iii'>ns n>a;!e a.;-' in^i i him. While wholly rlenyintr the irn h \| of these, he admitted t hat lie h;-.<l \o<: | various .shi|)S of recent years, and that ail ■ t these had been insured. lie (tutiif j- adt mi t ted iliat, while p oceedin.^s were heinjj ; taken n^fiinsi J.i'».i son, he had made yv«i- . 'he whole of hi* propsrt\ to his son. Tin 1 ; judge, in summing up, told (he jury th.it i j the only quus ion th v had t> consider > was whether or not the. prisoner had ' attempted to extort money in the manner I alleged, arid that it was no part of \hAr I uai' lo derir 1 .' 3 . tijion the trnt.li or fnisehood |of the churn?* iiifuie against fiuxton isut I I 'hey acquitibfl tie [iri«oner notwiihsland--1 } injr, thu- clearly showing by their verdict i ;hat iiu:y were so ranch dissatisfied with. ; i the evidence of the prosecutor that • iu'v would not. convict the I'nm who hail openly clurpml him with fi:i-<ny. , 'Die arrt-st of iiuxnn imtsiediately followed the a'-qniiful of J unii:son ; and : at the Liverpool w; ..'.pr as>izn the furuif-r : stood in the dock and the latter in the : witness-box. Yet ihe result of both trials • has heen the same. J.'uxton lias been ac ■ quitted; as Jamieson was acquitted befi ■■<■ ■ him. In neither case was the jury satisfied i with the evidence before them, and they ; were probably right Although the story • of Jamieson was told in the most ciretrnf stantial mahner, and nithouihit vvascoro- - borated in bevera! important partienhns, - his evidence was open to very stiong - suspicion. He stated that he h;id beer. I foi* nidny year.s acquainted with thp - prisoner fluxion, and tliat, in IS.'tfi, the s latter purchaser a vessel nailed the Ro-coe 1 of which he (the witness) became master. , He further stiled that he sailed with her 2 ii) January, J 857, for the Levant, whence, j; lie was afterwards to proceed to No tli r America before returning to England.

Before leaving Liverpool he was aware that the ship was unseaworthy, and he deposed lo several conversations which he had whh.Rnxton, in which the latter told him to cast her away, or to set fire" to her, and (hat it wculd he an excellent thins; for hot!) of them, as sbe was insured for £5000 or £6000, which was heyorid her teal value. He further said that insurances were effected qn several articles, particularly a quantity of biscuits, which were never put on hoard, and (hut, instead of carrying provisions enough for her whole voyage, she had not even sufficient to last her till she reached Smyrna, as it was necessary to put the crew on shovt a'lowance before arriving at ihatport. Jamieson fun her stated that several casks of brandy and a q-iantity of turpen'ine were pul on bnard, for the purpose of enabling him, if nprressnry, to sK fire to the ship. Then, fol.'owed a conversation, and a most im portant one, which was alleged to have iakenpl-ice on the day the vessel sailed. Jamiesjon said that, the owner, Ruxton, accompanied xhe ship for some di-iance down tne iMer«ey, and that before lea\ ing he said, " Now is \nnr time, and if you cannot knock her brains out you have the brandy on hoard." The second mate of i he ship swore that he accidentally overheard a portion of this conversation, having occasion nt »he time to approach the doov of the cabin where the owngr and 'he .master were seated; and he was so much impressed with the circtimstanrr thai-, lie made a note of it in his pocket - book, which was produced in court, fhe entry being distinctly legible. 'Ihe vessel then proceeded on her voyage, nnd c.a>t anrh-n- in the Bay of Smyrna r.n the 3rd <>f March. On that night. Jamie son said he determined tn destroy the sliip ; a-'d after the crew had retired to their hprr.hs he went down to the sail room, which was below the cabin, and tn whicdi the brandy was kept, and pouring a quantity of turpentine over the sails, set fire to I hem. An alarm of fire was scon alter given, and a:i attempt was make to extinguish it, but the sh : p was totally (ie-i'un ed, (he master and crew making :heiv way in Imats to Smyrna, where the}' all signed a formal protect in presence of the ISriiish Consul, to the effect that the tire had been t!ie result of accident. Such was the story told by the principal wjtnes*; who. hy his own admission, was eu/lty lioth of fvloniousjy destroying the >hip, and of pejurincj hinr-eif after wards. J«rrii: son furtJu'r aiiiui' t--- ! . on crosF-snmi-iiit'ion, tlmt in the yeirlß'9. lie hidden ni.iMer of jinuther vp.^o! hi'ioiM'!n^ to the prisoner, nnd that she {il»o liiv.l been l>st ! Mut he snM that this 10-s happened ili-ou.ji nceidenr. n(tiiou«h Kuxton h:xi 'oil him t!^ knock her hrnins out, as h^ Ivul X"ii { 0 in-iiired upon her. The jurtge, in siiminin;; vi», called tittention to the i u.spiri<>n.s chnr.'ictcr of the evidence adi duci'd aii-iiinst i!>e prisoner, and to the 1 distance of ij.-up tliat had elapsed since I lie ! tr-'i :!-r;c! ion iv (jueMion lo>.k jdnce ; but lie j also cii-ecud f he attention of the]U!yto i ';l'j(v;e ci;i'tinist,;inces which, irrespective of i Uic u^tini'Miv of'flie cap am find the mate, ( f-f-rengMii'iu'd t|-,c j case f..r the pro ecution. .'! h.->" wt'iv — that i}\e s-'nip had been i proved hy reliable eviiiencß ; o have been 1 uiisemvonhy ; that sh tt had been insured ( l/fy.') 1 d i,i.»)' value ; and ih-'if. she was short »f ;>rn\ i.sio:-,s /'or (he voy;iffe even to Sin} inn. Tin- jury, after having been I 'ocked up for sp\e!al liour.s, returned a verd ; ct of not n-niity. Tiiey consider"d that it wa-; not f^)f^ tn convicl on the evidence they had hofii-d ; and it is impossible to qn^Mon the propriety of their decision — j ;i dfci-ion, too. at which they arrived in flif f<ie." of flu- st'oni;est locnl prejudice^. I Tliim\ j c:p) he JTM !e doubt that frauds are | ru'rpetr.'i'e ! .•>kt.*j inst unflerwi iters, and that ; it is of [he u'oKKt imporiance to tlie co:n----i nvrcinl wm-id th;U <hey should be detected ! .md punished. Hut tlie proof of t'lrilt in ?(!cb f>ses is (iifnru't to obiaiu, and the i '{•inp's'ion fojn"-jii!y isstiotia;; and.uniier .'■ii-'-h .- : !-c:inis f :inc?<, juries c.innnt be too cupful. — Pvbiic Opinion, 2~ i\\ December.