He (His Honour) regretted very much that the witness Ponting had been attacked by Mr. Purves. The unfortunate man was the sole survivor of the wreck, and had spent the whole of that tempestuous night on the sea, and had done nothing to deserve being spoken ill of. Ponting had given his evidence in a proper manner, and appeared to be a decent sort of man; certainly not the kind of being Mr. Purves sought to make out. Mr. Purves had also said that Ponting had been saved by an act of Providence, but he (His Honour) did not know why Providence should have shown any more consideration for Ponting than for anyone else on board the ship. The man was, providentially no doubt, saved by his own perseverance and tenacity. If Ponting’s story was true, undoubtedly the pantry window did give way and the water poured in. If the jury found that the captain neglected his duty, they would have to find a verdict for the defendants. On the other hand, if they found a verdict for the plaintiff with damages, they would have to say how much they would apportion to the widow and how much to the child.
In reply to His Honour the foreman of the jury said they would prefer to consider their verdict next day.
Mr. Mitchell directed His Honour’s attention to the fact that he had said in his summing up that the certificates had nothing to do with the loading, whereas, in giving the certificates, the surveyors did so on the assumption that the vessel might go to sea without cargo. If there was a condition as to cargo, it would be mentioned in the certificate. Mr. Mitchell also contended that the defendants would not be liable unless the captain loaded the vessel in a way that, in his opinion, would make her unsea-worthy.
His Honour: These both seem to be good points, and I will bring them before the jury to-morrow morning.
KILPATRICK V. HUDDART, PARKER & CO., LTD.
Ninth Day, Friday, February 22, 1895.