CO129-328 - Governor Nathan - 1905 [1-6] — Page 126

seriatia:

124

1.

There is no force in this objection. The

presence of a clerk is not essential to the constitution of the

Marine Magistrate's Court.

2.

From the report of Captain Earnes-Lawrence

there appears to be no foundation in fact for these allegations.

8.

The allaged default of the accused's solici-

tor is a matter for which the Hagistrate is in no way responsible.

4.

This objection is probably taken under e mis-

appetension with regard to the scope of section 9 of the Merchant

Shipping Ordinance 1599 under which proceedings #sre taken. The

Section is not stated in the summons but it is section 9 and sub-

section 5 (e) thereof conferred jurisdiction to deal with the ac-

cused as he was dealt with. (ürdinance 10 of 1899: Revised Edition)

3.

This assertion is not borne out by the

evidence before me. On the contrary the evidence is to the effect

that the accused refused to sign off the articles.

6.

It seems to me that there was ample evidence

to warrant the conviction. The accused himself in his letter to

the Registrar-General of Shipping admits that he left the ship on the 25th. after leave to do so had been refused by the Officer

in command, and there is evidence that be refused to rejoin when

ordered to do so.

The penalty of 70 days imprisonment plus 9

heavy fine seems rather severe; but that is beside the question of

the regularity of the proceedings or the legality of the convic-

tion.

Bra. February, 1905.

(Sa.) H. S. Berkeley,

Ag. Chief Justice.

£