note: transcription publicly contributed - please contact us with comments, errors or omisions

HALIFAX DISASTER RECORD OFFICE
ARCHIBALD MACMECHAN, F.R.S.C.
DIRECTOR
HALIFAX, N.S.

[Newspaper clipping]
possible conditions wherein the collision might have occurred, but the primary cause of the disaster was negligence on board one of the ships.
Mr. Cluney said the jury must be bound by His Lordship's instructions on the law and in the face of His Lordship's intimation as to his view of the law it would be hardly necessary for him to take up the time of the jurymen by addressing them.
Judge's Address to Jury.
Addressing the jury Mr. Justice Russell said he had had occasion to look into the disaster matter more than once already and when putting the case to the Grand Jury he had the same impression as he had yesterday. The Grand Jury asked if they had the right to overrule his view and he had instructed them they had a perfect right to send the matter to a petty jury if they thought fit to do so. It might have been the duty of the defendant to keep the munition ship out of the harbor altogether. His Lordship knew nothing about that and failed to find anything in the regulations referring specially to munition ships as distinguished from any others, but it was his opinion that the Department should have directions that munition ships should not be allowed near the City where there was possibility of such accident occurring. The regulations pointed toward keeping hostile ships out for the protection of the City from enemies.
Statement of the Law.
His Lordship's statement of the law was that even though defendant was careless in allowing the munition ship to come up the harbor on December 6th, and supposing his duty was also to prevent the Imo from coming down the harbor, there was not the fact the the ships got in each other's way, which they had no business to do in such a harbor on a fine clear day, with ample sea room, and there was no excuse for the collision. One or the other was in the wrong. His Lordship did not know which ship came where she had no business to be and perhaps both were in the wrong, but the person causing the collision was the proximate cause of the disaster, and if the jurymen could put their hand on that man they would have the one on whom rested the responsibility for the loss of life on December 6th and he could be found guilty of manslaughter. It might be said the collision could not have happened if the munition ship had not been allowed to come up. That might be so but they go not back from effects to remote causes. The law says the guilty person is one whose action was the proximate and efficient cause. If it should be said the defendant was remiss in his duty or violated some order, His Lordship had to tell the jury that his view was that the evidence in the case rendered it legally impossible to hold the defendant guilty of manslaughter, and if such a verdict were found a reserved case would possibly be applied for and the verdict set aside by the full court. His Lordship's direction was to find a verdict of not guilty and acquittal. The matter of administration of defendant's department was one for his superior officers and His Lordship expressed no opinion whatever as to that. It would be improper under the conditions to render any other verdict that one of not guilty.
The jury retired about 3.30 and at about 4 14 returned to court and reported a verdict of not guilty, whereupon an application by Mr. Lovett for formal discharge of the defendant was granted.
The court adjourned until Saturday when a couple of prisoners are to be sentenced, and the petit jurymen were discharged for the term.





PUBLIC ARCHIVES OF NOVA SCOTIA
HALIFAX

MG 1 volume 2124 number 103 c