Battling with waves and lawyers : $b a genuine history of perils of the deep and an authentic record of the most important shipping case ever dealt with in the supreme courts of Australasia
History
Battling with waves and lawyers : $b a genuine history of perils of the deep and an authentic record of the most important shipping case ever dealt with in the supreme courts of Australasia
Alert (Ship : 1877-1893); Liability for marine accidents; Navigation -- Australia -- History; Shipwrecks -- Australia -- Victoria
Though believing my friend had made a mistake, I, out of curiosity,
went into Menzies’ bar, and there saw, sure enough, Messrs. Coldham
and Stewart and three of the jurymen (including McGregor) drinking,
smoking, and talking together in the most friendly manner, so far
as appearances went. The matter seemed so incredible that I, on
reflection, deemed it best to go and bring in some person, as a
witness, to the bar. Accordingly I went out, and happening to meet
Mr. Ebsworth (solicitor for Ponting) on the street, I succeeded in
getting him, somewhat reluctantly, to go with me to the bar. It is
almost needless to add that, the moment the five gentlemen saw Mr.
Ebsworth, they did not wait for a ceremonious introduction; but, on
the contrary, took a hasty departure at once. Immediately after their
disappearance I asked Mr. Ebsworth, “What are you going to do about
this affair?” “Oh,” he replied. “I can do nothing. Mr. Coldham is at
the top of the profession; I am only, so to speak, a new beginner,
and it would be against professional etiquette for me to take any
notice of these people having a drink together.” To this I rejoined,
“And so, rather than break through ‘professional etiquette,’ you
would stand by and see your client, Ponting, suffer an injustice.
If this be the view you take of what I call a serious matter, I may
as well tell you what I will do. In the event of this jury bringing
in a verdict in favour of the defendants, and of your drawing no
attention to what you, as well as myself, have seen, I will, in the
public press, expose the whole affair, including the conversation I
have had with you on the subject.” This had the desired effect; and
when the jury brought in their verdict against Ponting—as before
related—Mr. Ebsworth ventured to draw the Judge’s attention to
the hotel bar proceedings. Judge Chomley, however, “pooh-poohed”
the incident, and remarked that “in all probability the gentlemen
concerned had met by chance in a public bar, and were only taking a
friendly glass together.” Nevertheless, he added that if affidavits
were brought to him showing that serious wrong had been done, he, the
Judge, would consider the matter, and give a decision at a future
time. Affidavits were taken by myself and others detailing the whole
of the circumstances, and these sworn statements were considered by
Judge Chomley about six weeks after the trial; but he saw nothing
serious in them, and finally refused to grant a new trial. Notice
of appeal to the Supreme Court was at once given by Mr. Ebsworth;
but, notwithstanding this notice, a demand for costs was served on
Ponting, and because it was returned unsatisfied, the defendants’
lawyers applied for, and obtained, an order _nisi_ to make Ponting
compulsorily insolvent. Mr. Justice Hood, however, refused to make
the order _absolute_ until after the appeal case had been heard.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account