A SHIPPING CASE.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 13609, 18 December 1909, Page 2

A SHIPPING CASE.

THE WAITEMATA EPISODE

The YTaitemata case, which has achieved some celebrity in shipping circles, came before his Honour Mr Justice Sim in the Supreme Court yesterday. The case was in the form cf a claim by David Lindsay Maxwell, abio seaman, against the Union 6team S'liiiJ Company, for £25 wages. Mr Stringer, K.C., with him Mr Johnston, appeared for the plaintiff; aud Mr Biswick for the defendants.

j In opening the case Mr Stringer said i that this was a claim for wrongful j dismissal. Oniy a comparatively small j siim was involved, but the case affected the rights of a considerable number of men. and also raised questions of importance with regard to the construction of certain articles of agreement and the award under which seamen were working. A statement of facts had been agreed upon; it was now purely a question of construction. The plaintiff and other seamen shipped on the steamer Waitemata, signing on under what was known as a running agreement. The articles set cut that the plaintiff shipped "on a voyage from Lyttelton to any port cr in the Australasian colonies or • kUnd or islands in the North or vSouth ! Pacific Ocean, trading to and fro in I any succession of voyages, for a term of service not exceeding six calendar : months, or until first arrival ot the . ncrt of Lyttelton after expiry of that i term." The Waitemata commenced her ! voyage, and after calling at several i ports arrived in Dunedin, sailing thence for Newcastle. The plaintiff signe-d on in May. and the steamer nrrived in Newcastle on 18th Septem- ! her. On the 20th September the master of the ship terminated the plaintiff's engagement by giving 24 hours.' notice, but plaintiff and others similarly notified objected. On the 23rd Sentember the plaintiff and others were ordered off the ship, and they accordingly left. The company afterwards provided them with free passages to New Zealand. The articles contained the following clause: "The Now Zealand Arbitration Court awards in respect to seamen for the timo being in force shall be deemed to form part ot this agreement wherever they apply." The seamen having entered into this contract started on their voyage. From Newcastle the ship intended going to Manila, which was an island in the North Pacific, and within the limits of the articles. At Newcastle they were practically turned off the shin. The. contention for the company was that it had a right to determine the contract at any port, even outside New Zealand, while the contention of the men was that their engagement must be determined in New "Zealand. The award practically adopted the view taken by the men, and counsel submitted that the only possible construction of sub-sections (f) and (g) in clause 42 of the Shipping and Seamen Act was that the contracts were to be determined in a Now Zealand port. It seemed impossible to suppose that it was contemplated by the parties that a man could be discharged" in Manila, where he might be left for some time unemployed, before getting back to New Zealand.

Mr Beswick submitted that the service could be determined at any time on the completion of a voyage by giving the necessary notice. There was a limit beyond which they need not go. It was open to tho company to terminate the engagement at any Australian port, provided a free return was given to 'New Zealand. The contract did not imply a round trip, and the men need not necessarily be discharged in New Zealand. The award showed that it was contemplated that the men could be discharged at other places than in the Dominion, by providing- that if the discharge took place in the Dominion, the men should be returned to their port by rail if tho employers so desired. There was practically no difference in the case or the men coming back in the Waitemata. or in another steamer. They were getting their free voyage when they came back in another'steamer.

Mr .Stringer: They get no -wages. Mr Beswick: They are not working. That is one of the risks they run. Mr Stringer said that Mr Beswick had ignored the fact that the men might be disoharged on any one of the islands in the North Pacific. They might earn a month's wages, and then take two months to get back. The men might also leave the ship at one of these islands, and cause it to be laid up there indefinitely. Counsel contended that the Act contemplated only discharge in New Zealand. His Honour reserved his decision.