SAILOR’S ABSENCE FROM SHIP

Press, Volume LXXVII, Issue 23263, 25 February 1941, Page 12

SAILOR’S ABSENCE FROM SHIP

♦ ’S REFERENCE IN COURT TOSV RECENT FIRE ’ (PRES*. ASSOCIATION TRLEOFAM.^*. WELLINGTON, February 24.;„fi‘ A recent fire aboard a vessel:-),' -v berthed at Wellington was referred tO-V-, by Mr R. C. Christie, representing shipping company concerned, in • tile •'> Magistrate’s Court to-day, in a case in',)which a member of the crew was ‘ charged with being absent without leave. Mr Christie said that although it was_. not suggested that the defendant's: inaction had been responsible for they occurrence, he had. by his breach oL "f. duty, created an opportunity for such a happening. ' ’ Walter Walpole, a seaman, aged 47, pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to imprisonment with hardlabour for six weeks by Mr Jt L. Stout, S.M.

Mr Christie said that Walpole was due on duty at the gangway at 4 a.m. and he was not there. An apprentice, whose duty it was to watch the decks, was put on gangway duty, and Walpole turned up later in the day, drunk and abusive. “This is a matter of grave importance in these times,” said Mr Christie. “This particular vessel suffered from an inexplicable fire. We can’t suggest it was caused through the defendant’s actions, but by -his breach of duty he created an opportunity for it to happen.” Walpole said he had been oh duty for four months continuously and did not have a day’s leave during that period. He had been paid overtime for week-ends and national holidays, but, he added, “that does not help any man who-wants a holiday.” Mr Christie said the fact was that the defendant had had shore leave.