THE CASE OF THE SURAT. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF THE CAPTAIN.

Waikato Times, Volume V, Issue 276, 17 February 1874, Page 2

THE CASE OF THE SURAT. CONVICTION AND SENTENCE OF THE CAPTAIN.

Thk Besident Magistrate's Court was densely crowded yesterday morning, MrMaitland, EM., having intimated on the previous evening tint he would deliver judgment at the close of the police ca#es upon Edmund Joseph Johnson, late captain of the ship Surat. On teking hip sent, Mr Haitian d proceeded to give his decision as follows : — Edmoiid Joseph Johnion, — I hove carefully considered j the evidence whioh ha* been adduced by the Crown in support of th» ohajge brought against yau. as contained m the information, ao *rll as the evidence tendored and the points raised by counsel for jour defence. lam sorry to say from thft9yidtnce I can coi»e to no other conclusion than that you have been guilty of trhat I must characterise as a very serious offence — that of criminal neglect of your dutj as master of your ship. Tins is to my miud abundantly proved by the evidonoe of the witnesses who have been call™! in the case, as also by yoor own evidence given before the Court of Inquiry into the circumstances of the wreck of your vessel, which the Jaw allows f- o be miuU use of in this Court. In mentioning the e\ ldeiiee given by you on that occasion, I must do you the credit of siying that' I think you gave that evidence in a fair and straightforward manner. At a time which should have called forth from nny iran of common prudence the utmost euergy in tht» Uireotum of taking every poosiblo step to preserve L<s ship and tho«» who were in it from the immediate and imminent dangert wlncii threat euud them, aud which I need not recapitulate, jou showed an entire want of due precaution and a disregard of consequences in not taking proper means to aeok and üb-mu assistance from the passing steamer, wluohyou hbi it clearly in your power to do — an omission on your part which might have been nttended with very fatal results, and bv which you, in my opinion, seriously endangered the lives of thode you had on board. It has been suggested by your counsel that seeking the assistance of the steamer under tho ciicumstances was a matter the necessity of which there might be a difference of opinion upon, and that, if there wa» am reasonable doubt as to what was your duty in the matter, you hare a right to that doubt. I ngree with him so far, but I cannot see how any man of common prudenco could have had a doubt as to what was his duty under the ciicumstances with regard to the tteamer. The want of duo precaution and the recklessness on your part may, I think, be attributable to tin. fact of >oir being at the time in a stiite of partial intoxication —a Mate which, in my opinion, under the circumstances, aggravates the offence. I cannot overlook the fact that you have been already severely pun ished by another tiibui i! in conn-tlion with this matter, by ba\in» had your certificate cancelled. This Court is one of a dif Cerent constitution, nnri in that resj.eet may bo said to have nothing to do with the sentence ot any other Court. However, I think it will be right for mo to'keop the punishment ulncli 3011 h«\<> ai)e«d\ mffernd in view in n.«B*ing sentence upon >ou in thm case. Keeping that, therefore, in sight, I 1 sentence jou to ba impiii,»ie(l m her Majesty's gaol for two months. Unflor other eiroums^nivf*, I nhoutrt have folt it mv duty to have pmai'd n much more severe sentence. The sentence evidently cienied a profound impression in Court, and pynrv eve was turned upon the prisoner, tho pallor of whose chetku testified to the agony that must have been ranrmjr , n ],M, M breast. He, howevei, bore himself with an nir ot appaient eMlmnes", mid even cmilpd. At this time he was sitting Hesule lm lawyer, lir Stout, at tho solicitors' tnbl.-. Immediately on the sentence being p. juounad, Detective Sliury posted Inrnself in ''is immediate vicinity, at orce intimating n » plainly ns if he harl spoken the words, " You are my prisoupr. ' For a few m-chh'* ll ere was a aiknce in Court, and then Mr Stout r< s<?. and, adiires<ing the Oourt, said : Mig'it I aek your W'jr-lup if ci - i.l give uny option ol a fine? Jlr Mm 1 laud : JSV, Ido nut, Mr Stunt. 1/ I did I should have said h'>. T do.it think that am fine, under the eireumetancen, would bu connuinsuratic with the natuiuof the offence. Mr Stout : The law contemj Istei a fino.

Mr Maitland . Yes, but, icavju a to the uiaor«tiou of the Judge who has to administer justice, nhother it eh»ll be inflict e<l or not. Mr Stout • There *re two other charges against the defendant. Are thf yfo b« ?ro<v <Hle.l with ? Mr Hag(,'itt Kaid that under th« oircum»t»nc«s they would bo wiu.u. i« u. — O< ar>'ian