273
The Solicitors did make an application to the Harbour Master for the sale of the effects but this was refused.
A second application that before the effects were handed over to the prisoner, the Solicitors should be informed, was however granted.
3.
I see no reason to believe that Mr. Murray was otherwise than properly dealt with by the Harbour Master and other officials of the Harbour Master's Department. He was charged with being absent from his ship without leave on the 26th., 28th, and 27th. February and with continued disobedience of lawful command. He was found guilty of disobedience in the first instance by leaving the ship on the 26th. February after having been refused permission and then of not returning to the ship on the 26th, when he had been told to do so. According to his own letter addressed to the Registrar General of Shipping he was absent from the ship between 6.80 p.m. and 11 p.m. on the 28th. after having been refused leave. He makes no reference in that letter to any absence on the 27th. but it is clear from the evidence given before the Court that he was on shore on that day.
He was represented before the Marine Magistrate's Court by a fully qualified Solicitor who had an opportunity of receiving complete instructions from his client and though Mr. Murray was not satisfied with the manner in which his defence was conducted there is no reason to believe that Mr. Stevenson did not do the best he could for his client.
The misstatements of fact contained in his letter are probably due to the strong feeling evoked by the hard usage he considers himself to have suffered and by the imperfect recollection of incidents that happened some time before he based his appeal on them.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
M. MacDonnell
Governor etc.
273
The Solicitors did make an application to the Harbour Master for the sale of the effects but this was refused.
A second application that before the effects were handed over to the prisoner, the Solicitors should be informed, was however granted.
3.
I see no reason to believe that hr. Murray was otherwise than properly dealt with by the Harbour Master and other officials of the Varbour Master's Department. He was charged with being absent from his ship without leave on the 26th., 28th, and 27th. #ebruary and with continued disobedience of lawful command. He was found guilty of disobedience in the first instance by leaving the ship on the 26th. February after having been refused permission and then of not returning to the ship on the 26th, when he had been
told to do so. According to his own latter addressed to the hexjs- trar General of Shipping he was absent from the ship between 6.80
p.m. and 11 p.m. on the th. after having been refused leave. he
makes no reference in that letter toany absence on the 6th. but it
is clear from the evidence given before the Court that he was on
shore on that day.
He was represented before the Marine Magistrate's
Court by a fully qualified Solicitor who had an opportunity of re- ceiving complete instructions from his client and though Mr. Murray
was not satisfied with the manner in which his defence was conducted
there is no reason to believe that Mr. Stevenson did not do the best
he could for his client.
The risstatements of fact contained in his letter
are probably due to the strong feeling evoked by the hard usage he
considers himself to have suffered and cy the imperfect recollection of incidents that happened sore time before he based his appeal on
them.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
M. Mathion
Governor Sc..
Mjp
་ ་ ་ ་་
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.