CIVIL SITTINGS. MAXWELL v. THE UNION STEAM SHIP CO.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 13610, 20 December 1909, Page 2

CIVIL SITTINGS. MAXWELL v. THE UNION STEAM SHIP CO.

His Honour also gjve judgment in the case of David Lindsay Maxwell v. The Union Steam Ship Company, or, as it is better known, the Waitemata case.

j The plaintiff claimed £25 for wages. \ In his judgment his Honour said. ' that the rights of the parties ap- ! peared to depend on the construction lof a written contract between them, siy ', the articles which the plaintiff signed jat Lyttelton in May, 191)9, he shipped as an able seaman on the s.s. Waitemata, to serve "'en a voyage from Lytj telton in any port or ports in the ! Australasian colonies or island or islands in the North or South Pacific Ocean, trading, etc., and from any succession of voyages for a term, and service not exceeding six calendar months, or until first arrival at. the part of Lyttelton after expiry of that term. - ' It was clear, his Honour thought, that this was intended to be a "running agreement' within the meaning of sub-sections (j) and (g) of Section 42 of "The Shipping and Se-amen Act, 1908.'' The plaintiff hod been engaged for a succession of voyages within the limits indicated in the articles, the engagement being limited to a period of six calendar months from the date of the agreement or until the first arrival of the ship at Lyttelton after the expiration of that period. This view of the contract was justified, he thought, by the judgment of Lord Loreburn in the Board of Trade v. Baxter (1907), A.C. 373. The result of this view was that the company was not justified in terminating the plaintiff's agreement on September 20tn, before the expiration of the six calendar months and before the return of the ship to Lyttelton. In this view of the matter if was unnecessary to consider the question of the construction of section 75 of the Seamen and Shipping Act, 1908. The plaintiff was entitled, to damages, and by agreement of the parties, the amount was to be assessed by the Stipendiary Magistrate. In the meantime the further consideration of the action would be adjourned, with leave to either party to apply, ajid the question of costs would be reserved.

Mr Stringer, X.C, with Mr Johnston, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Beswick for the defendant.