12
TRAN
1.
(i) As mentioned in the second paragraph of the Shipping Master's report.
(ii) Mr. Murray alleges that the summons brought on board was addressed to A. Murray, Carpenter, and contained charges of being absent from the ship without leave on the 24th, 25th, and 26th instant. I enclose a copy of the original summons issued in this case, from which it will be seen that on this point Mr. Murray's memory is at fault.
(iii) It is further stated that before the hearing of the case, the Harbour Master had a private consultation with the Solicitor for the prosecution and with Mr. Stevenson, who appeared as Mr. Murray's representative. Captain Barnes-Laurence informs me that he had never previously seen either of the gentlemen mentioned until he saw them that day in Court.
(iv) The statement that the charges were amended by an alteration of the dates and that the Magistrate, after hearing certain evidence, struck the 28th date out of the charge, are both not in accordance with fact.
(v) It is equally untrue that Mr. Murray was not allowed to call his witnesses or to make any statement in his defence. The Harbour Master enquired of Mr. Stevenson whether he desired to call witnesses, and he replied in the negative. He presumably knew what evidence it was advisable to tender on behalf of his client.
(vi) At the conclusion of the case, no appeal was lodged.
(vii) Mr. Murray's statement that an attempt was made to coerce him into signing off his articles is dealt with in the 4th paragraph of the Shipping Master's report.
(viii) The allegation that while in prison, Mr. Murray was requested to sign a document authorising the sale of his effects on behalf of the firm of solicitors who defended him is untrue.
The
12
TRAN
་
.. J
1.
›
losure.
3
272
in the second paragraph of the Shipping Master's report.
(ii) Mr. Murray alleges that the summons brought
on board was addressed to A. Murray. Carpenter, and contained charg-
es of being absent from the ship without leave on the 24th., 25th.
and 26th.instant. I enclose a copy of the original summons issued
in this case from which it will be seen that on this point kr. Hur-
ray's memory is at fault.
(111)
it is further stated that before the hear-
ing of the case the harbour Master had a private consultation with
the Solicitor for the prosecution and with Mr. Stevenson who
appeared as Jr. Murray's representative. Captain Earnes-Laurence
informs me that he had never previously seen either of the gen-
tieren mentioned until he saw them that day in Court.
(iv)
The statement that the charges were
amended by an alteration of the dates and that the Magistrate af-
Ler hearing certain evidence struck the 28th. date cut of the
charge are both not in accordance with fact.
(v)
It is equally untrue that Mr. Murray was
not allowed to call his witnesses or to make any statement in his
defence. The harbour Master enquired of Mr. Stevenson, whether he
desired to call witnesses and he replied in the negative. He pre-
sumebly knew what evidence it was advisebis to tender on behalf of
his client.
(vi)
lodged.
(vii)
At the conclusion of the case no appeal nos
Mr. Murray's statement that an attempt was
made to coerce him into signing off his articles is dealt with in
the 4th. paragraph of the Shipping Master's report.
(viii)
The allegation that while in prison kr.
Murray was requested to sign a document authorising the sale of
his effects on behalf of the firm of sclicitors who defended him
is untrue.
The
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.