The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1886-05-29 00:00:00

CONSPIRACY AGAINST PRINCE
ALEXANDER.

A Bulgarian, named Michailoff, has revealed to the
Government the details of a conspiracy in which he
Ws invited to take part, having been summoned to
Burgas for that purpose. He states that a person
named Nabokoff, formerly a captain in the Russian
army, a Montenegrin priest, some Bulgarians unknown
to him, and a few Montenegrins, formed a plot against
the life of Prince Alexander and M. Karaveloff, the
Bulgarian Premier, which was to be carried out under
Nabokoff's supervision. In consequence of Michai-
loff's statement all the conspirators have been arrested.
One cf the prisoners has confirmed Mtchailoff's ac-
count -

EXTRAORDINARY ADVENTURES OF
BRITISH SAILORS.

At the Clerkenwell Police-court on Tuesday after-
noon, Mr. Hosack heard the case that was adjourned
a fortnight ago. in which Captain Robertson, of the
British ship Justitia, was summoned by the engineer
of the same vessel for the certificate of his discharge
which was withheld. When the case first came up
for hearing, evidence was given to the effect that the
crew of the Justitia had been pressed into privateer-
ing, and statements of so remarkable a nature were
made that the magistrate adjourned the summons
pending investigations, which it was stated the Board
of Trade were going to undertake.
On Tuesday Mr. R. M. Kerr, who appeared on lie-
half of the plaintiff, Richard Murphy, said that a
letter had been received from the Board of Trade,
stating that the authorities found themselves unable
to give Murphy any assistance or advice in regard to
the recovery of his certificate or wages. Inquiry had
been made at the Registry Office, and it was founBl
that the Justitia had been registered in the name of
William Philips. On the 12th of August she was
sold to foreigners in Venezuela. It also appeared
that William Philips was on board the vessel during
the whole time, and served as steward to the passen-
gers who came on board at Antwerp. It had also
been discovered from the second mate that while he
was carrying the cases mentioned on the last oc-
casion on board at Antwerp the sling slipped and some
fell down and broke open, and he then saw that
they were filled with rifles. He spoke to the
captain about it, and asked to be discharged. The
captain told him to put the rifles in the ship, and re-
fused to discharge him. He then left the ahip, and
went to the British Consul at Antwerp and made a
statement. The Consul sent him home. He (Mr.
Kerr) would urge that that proved conclusively that
the captain knew what the cargo was, and must have
had some idea as to what was going to be done with
the rifles. The captain had said that the command
was taken out of his hands on the voyage; but it
seemed rather absurd that two foreign Generals and
two other passengers with Mr. Philips should be able
to take the command out of the hands of the captain,
who had 21 or 22 hands under him. He submitted
that there was no reason for the captain to withhold
the discharge from the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, Richard Murphy, was then called,
and said that four gentlemen came on board the
Justitia at Antwerp. There was a steward on board
before they got there. He did not know the steward's
name at the time, but afterwards ascertained that it
was Philips.. He left them when they first made
land, shortly before the flag was chanced. He could
not tell the date on which the flag was changed. He
thought it would be before August 13. He applied
to the captain for his discharge about two months
ago, and he referred him to his son, who refused to
give the discharge. After that he made repeated
applications for his certificate without success. He
had heard the captain several times say there was a
gentleman who had advanced him a lot of money.
He said the gentleman's name was Sir William
Montague Cole. A gentleman and lady answering to
that name came on board at Antwerp. They left the
ship before she sailed. When the captain told
witness that the co.nmand was taken out of his hands
he did not say who had done it. None of the four
gentlemen who came on board at Antwerp were sea-
faring men. The captain and the first mate were the
only navigating officers on board.
Mr. Kerr: Who was in command of the ship when
she pursued the fishing boats?
Witness: I should think the captain. I did not
know any other navigators on board. The witness
continued that the captain was in command when the
fight took place with the gunboat. He was on the
bridge, and "made the most of it." He was giving
orders to the engineers that they were to
go as hard as they could to try and run the
cruiser down. Witness was below at the time. They
were not fast enough to overtake the cruiser. (A
laugh.) The captain took the Justitia to Hayti, but
witness could not tell whether he handed her over to
the British Consul there. They left her there, and she
had never come back to this country to his knowledge.
They took on board a number of soldiers at Venezuela,
about 150 in all. They had more on board previously,
but they went on shore at the different islands. They
used to take the boats away and scrape the names off
the backs of them. Witness did not know that the
Krupp guns were on board till the night of the engage-
ment with the cruiser. He did not know what the
cargo was supposed to be. When he saw the guns
they had been used. A shot had been fired at the
cruiser. One of the foreigners on board the Justitia
was killed in the engagement.
Mr. Kerr: Do you know what ships or sailing
boats were actually captured by the Justitia?
Witness: No, sir; I could not tell you the names
of them. The Justitia used to fire across their bows;
bring them to, lower her boats, bring them aside her,
and, after taking everything worth anything from
them, cast them adrift.
In reply to his worship, the defendant at first
stated that he had no questions to ask the witness;
but subsequently cross-examined as to the applicatious
he had made for his discharge, and said that he told
him to summon him for his wages.
Mr. Kerr said that could not be done, as 'he wag es
due exceeded .E 5 in amount. He owed the plaintiff
something like £l5O, and they would have to bring
an action in the Admiralty Court to recover it.
In answer to his worship, Mr. Kerr said they had
not been able to ascertain who had fitted out the
vessel. They had not been able to discover any Sir
William Cole. There was a Viscount Cole, but he
had nothing to do with the case.
Richard Aylwood, second mate, said that when the
Justitia was at Antwerp and they were taking the
chests on board, three of the cases broke from the
chains and opened, and on'inspecting them he found
they each contained 30 rifles, with bayonets affixed.
There were 370 of these cases in all. The defendant
told him they contained starch. In consequence of
what he saw he left the Justitia, and did not accom-
pany her on the voyage she subsequently took. He
went to the Consul of Antwerp and informed him of
the circumstances, and the Consul arranged for his
passage back to London.
The third mate, James Carew, also gave evidence
as to certain parts of the voyage, stating that a
Colonel de Sandeville was the only one on board
who spoke English to him. The captain spoke
Spanish.
The defendant, at the close of the evidence, said he
was sorry he had no one to speak for him. He en-
tered into a long statement, contradicting in some
particulars the statement he made at the previous
hearing of the case. He chiefly impressed upon the
magistrate that his command ceased when the vessel
left Antwerp. He admitted having been on the bridge
of the ship giving orders when the rebel gunbcat
came up, but said he acted in defence of himself and
the crew.
The defendant was asked to give the name and
address of the owner, and said he was a Sir William
Montague Cole, whose address he had left at home,
but the agents for the owner were: Messrs. Beere and
Guthrie, of 14, Billiter-street.
Mr. Hosack said he considered the defendant had
certainly delayed giving the certificate, and without
remarking upon the case, he would impose a penalty
of 40s. upon the defendant, and would allow the Com-
plaint £2 costs.