DUNEDIN.

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3144, 17 March 1879, Page 2

DUNEDIN.

Saturday. Mr Watt, R.M., delivered judgment in the Easterhill case, saying " whether the accused is or is not guilty depends on whether the boy was alive or dead when he fell into the water. By law he had a right to take measures to recover the dead body, and the master had no right to consider whether the boy reached the water alive or would have been drowned before a bo?,t reached him; but if he did so reach the water, it was his duty to make every effort procurable to preserve life. This he failed to do, doing absolutely nothing, and exhibiting a want of presence of mind and incapacity or carelessness which, I hope and think, is unparallelled against British shipmasters. Speaking as a Judge, I am of opinion, no experts having been called, that the boy's fall must have resulted in immediate death, and such being my opinion, I do not see my way to convict the accused of omitting to take means to preserve life. I must therefore dismiss the information. I can* not too strongly reprobate the unmanly conduct of the accused, nor help contrasting it with that of a witness who boldly and gallantly rushed overboard, trusting to that assistance to save him so tardily and inefficiently given." Marvel* lous to relate, there were two life-buoys hanging astern, but neither were thrown to Johnston or the boy.

This day.

The master of the barque Easterhill, who was charged with neglecting to save the life of an apprentice who fell overboard, was acquitted, but the Magistrate strongly reprobated his unmanly conduct.