LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1304, 6 December 1911, Page 5

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT. PERSECUTION ALLEGED. BY A SEA COOK. UNION AND SECRETARY CITED. Allegations of a somewhat unusual naturo wore niado against the Seamen's Union and its secretary (W. Young) during the course of an action heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) The parties to the action were Pierre Chaplin, coo?:, of "Wellington, plaintiff, and AV. T. Young and the Wellington section of the Australasian Federated Seamen's Industrial Union of Workers, defend:! nt,=. Jlr. T. M. Wilford, with him Mr. P. Levi, appeared for l'ierre Chaplin, and Mr. C. R. Dix represented W. T. Young ami the Seamen's Union. The Allegations. . In the statement of claim the following was alleged:—

On August 23, 1911, and, for several months' previously, Pierre Chaplin 'was employed as cook on s.s. Nikau, belonging'to. the Anchor Co. During the employment of Chaplin on August 21, the forward hands, numbering seven, complained to the Nelson manager that Chaplin did not suit them as cook. After making inquiries, the lu.ln.t7cr stated that he was satisfied that Chaplin was performing his duties satisfactorily. Next day, however, when the vessel arrived at Wellington, the men, after consulting with Mr. Young (mid acting upon his instigation and instructions), gave' notice, at -1.30 p.m., to the master of the Nikau that they would "leave at that hour next day when in Nelson. They were ontilled to leave the ship on 2i hours' notice. Upon receiving notice, the master at once engaged other men, but Young again interfered, and forbade the men engaged to join the steamer. When the master protested and explained the position, Young stated that ho would not allow the men to sail in tho ship until the cook had been, dismissed. The master then sent these men to the' s.s. Kennedy (belonging to the same company), in order that they should proceed to Nelson, but Young prevented them from going on board. ' After the arrival of the Nikau in Nelson, on August 23, tho forward hands again interviewed the manager of the company. An endeavour was made to settle the difference, but tne men refused to remain unless tho plaintiff (Chaplin) was dismissed. After they had received' instructions by telegram from Young, they intimated that they would stop on if Chaplin were dismissed. The manager then stated that he had no grounds for discharging Chaplin, and declined to do so. The forward hands thereupon left the vessel. Having engaged a temporary crew to take the vessel to AVellingtan, the manager sent for Chaplin, and informed him that, owing to Young's action, nud, as it would otherwise be impossible to obtain a crew, the company, had been obliged to dispense with his services, though they were perfectly satisGed with him. Tho manager intimated that he would interview Young in reference to the matter. At this interview, Young told the manager that he had a right to do what he had done. Further he had falsely and moliciouslv stated that Chaplin was well'known on the coast, and that the same thing had happened on two previous occasions (meaning thereby that Pierre Choplin had been guilty of some impropriety). These implications were wholly untrue. Since these occurrences Chaplin had endeavoured to obtain situations as cook on other vessels, but in every case had been refused on the ground "cither that Young' had .warned the owners against employing him, or had repeated tho slanders, or that such owners, or their agents, had heard of.ths occurrences, and had been deterred from employing Chaplin lest they should be treated similarly. In consequence Chaplin had b?en u'nablj to earn his livelihood, and had suffered great loss and damage. For a further cause of action, it was alleged that the defendants (or some of them) without lawful justification had combined and conspired with the forward hands to procure Chaplin's dismissal. The claim was for .£l5O damages, and an injunction prohibiting the defendants from repeating any of 'their acts and from interfering with Chaplin's employment.

The Defence. In the statement of defence, it was denied that Chaplin had been employed for a long time as cook on'steamers trading on tho coast, but it was admitted that he had been engaged for a short period. Chaplin's allegations were denied. If it were proved that Young had committed the acts alleged, then the uniou declared that he was not acting in the course of his employment or the scope thereof. Defendant Young alleged that his defence had been prejudiced by the quotation of occurrences at which he had not been present. Mr. Wilford stated that, as several of his witnesses belonged to the crow of the Nikau, and, as the vessel was to leave for Nelson on that evening, ho would reserve his opening address, and would call evidence. The Cook's Evidence.

Pierre Chaplin, tho plaintiff, stated that ho had served as a cook in various ships on the New Zealand coast for several years past. His discharges were all marked "Very good." He detailed the occurrences set out in the statement of claim, and mentioned a number of instances on which he had been refusod employment since leaving tho Nikau. He had only been able to get about ten days' work on shore since that time, as he was a seafaring cook, and was not able to cook "classic" dishes.

To Mr. Dix: He had been chief cook on several steamers, theso including the Zeaiondia and the AVaitemata. No trouble had arisen on tho Waitemata on witness's account. It was true that he had trouble with a man named Roue. That troublo had arisen because ho would not give Rowe certain stores, which he was not entitled to give.

Robert Hay. master of the.Nikau, stated that, on August 21, at Nelson, the crew had asked permission to iuako a complaint at the owners' office. On the following day (at Wellington) tho crew gave notice. In consequence of some-thing-which the mate had told witness, tho latter had asked Young if he was stopping "now men from joining the ship." Young denied that. Witness then called one of the men over for the purpose of interrogating him ■ on this point, and Young snapped his fingers, and ejaculated that ho had "been stopping men, and be would stop any others from joining. That's in ■ front of your chief officer," be added. Subsequently witness had engaged a crew to go to Nelson by the Kennedy, but the crew did not reach Nelson. They went to the Kennedy, but did not make tho trip. At Nelson the crew had'signed off, the cook -was discharged, and witness had secured u "scratch" crew to bring, tho vessel to Wellington. •So far as the cook (Chaplin) was concerned; , witness had nothing against'him. • Young had said something about Chaplin being "known before." - • • • ; To Mr. Dix: No complaint about tbo cook had baoa made-to-witness. Before tho crew gave notice in Wellington, witness had seen Young alongside. tho boat on the wharf. He did not, remember Young saying:'"l think that.l have a right to advise men not to. go on this 6hip, or on any other." On a subsequent occasion he believed that Young had stated that the men had acted without the authority of- the union, and thnt they would have to take tho responsibility.

William Rogers, master mariner and manager of,''the'Anchor , Shipping ami Foundry Ciiiiipany, Nelson, gave details of the mlervicws with the seven members oi' the crew ol' the'.Nikdu at Nelson on August 1G and 17. The discharge of the cook atNelson was a sort of imitunL ar-' rangenicnt between.witness and Chaplin, .because Chaplin knew that witness cc-iild not obtain a crew to work'the Nikan while Chaplin was on board. Eventually, witness Ciimo to -Wellington to sse Young, to seek an (.'.iplnriatidn, and In sco what action,,if any, ho (witness) would take. Yu'uiig gave witness to understand that such a stale of .iiffairs would not occur again. a« thu union luiil passed ;i resolution to the effect thai tho i.icn mu=t not act on their own account. Wlitn Chaplin left th<; Nikau, witnn« lad cndMVOured to place him on another of the uompany's ship?, but had beta .unable

to do fo, as flic m-w had refund to en t.i sea with liim. clccUirinpr that they ilul not want tin; Nikau's "leaving.' To Jlr. Dix: 110 would not have got rid of Chnplin if he conld linvc got iinother crew. , . To hi.-- Honour: 110 inferred, irom his conversation with Young that, it Ciiuplin were taken back, thru- would be more trouble. Arthur .lames Norri?, jirovidorc my Levin and Co.'s shipping line, .stated .thnt he had refused employment to Chaplin on aecuimt of what he had heard at the * To "itr. Dii: All he knew of the affair was hearsay.

"He Snapped His Fingers." Tames Boyd, chief officer of the Xikaii, recounted a conversation which he had had with Young who, when asked if ho had stopped a man from joining the vessel, had told witness to "mind his own business." Later Young faid~to Captain If ay in the presence of witness: "I tell you, Captain Hay, I did stop that man, and any other who comes along, and you can't do that!" and snapped his fingers to suit tho words.

His Honour: I am afraid his knowledge of the law is very limited. William Trimblett, providore of the I'atea Shipping Company, testified to having declined fo employ Chaplin on account of what he (witness) had heard from tho officers of the Nikau.

In answer to a question from his Honour, witness stated that he did not feel jiistified in taking the risk of employing Chaplin, without having received the sanction of tho sailors.

Lewis Eudman, chief steward of the Nikau. also gave evidence in support of plaintiff's case. "Not so Much That the Men Left." Mr. Dix stated that he proposed to call evidence with a view to showing that defendant Young had nothing to do with tho trouble on tho Nikau. The men had given notice to the master of the vessel before seeing Young. His Hononr: The gravamen of tho charge is not so much that the men left, as that Young prevented.a man from joining tho ship and, apparently, admitted it. : ..''■•

W. T. Young, secretary of the Wellington section of the uniou, stated that, on August 22, it was reported to him that the crew of he A'ikau had decided to leave their vessel. He then went to the lNikau, and stayed "about there" for about three-quarters of an hour. During thnt lime a man.informed him that he had handed his "discharge" to Captain Uay (by way of engagement) before hearing pt the" troublo on - the vessel. Ho (Young) told the man that .ho had a right to demand his "discharge" if he wanted it back. The man then spoke to the chief officer.-who approached Young, and asked him (hi unmannerly fashion) if he had stopped men from 'joining the vessel. Witness had refused to answer and later had denied to Captain Hay having advised the mau not to go , on board, but ho had also told the captain that he (witness) considered that ho had a right to advise the man in any matter in connection with the Seamen's Union. In the evening, ho (Young) went to tho s.s. Kennedy,, and told a man the facts of the Nikau affair, but did not "advise" him not to go over to Nelson. In eross-exaroinntion. tho witness ivaa pressed by Mr. Wilford ou tho auestion of a telegram sent to the union's representative on tho Nikau: "If cook dismissed, resume duty." Witness main«l? 1 n<l "° "collection °ft At Mr. Wilford's request, he signed a document authorising counsel to obtain the telegram if it had been sent. The evidence of Joseph Hansen. Geonro i ranks. Danml Donovan, and Irving Tfowe was to the effect that the tncmbersof the crow of the Aik.iu had given notice hefore seeing loung. He had not influenced them in any way. At 4.30 p.m. the- case was adjourned until 10 0 clock this moraine, when another witness for the defence will bo heard.'

THE SHIPPING CASE. FINDING OF THE SPECIAL JURY. POTNTS TO BE AKGTJED. In the' Supreme Court yesterday, before tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and a snecml jury of .four, there was concluded the hearing of the case in which John Duthie and Co.. Ltd.. merchants proceeded against the New- Zealand Shipping Company to recover damages for loss caused through breakage of iron pipes earned in the defendant companv's steamers. "

The claim was in respect of pipes sbipiwd' from London to Wellington bv the Turakina in April, and by the Toneanro in May.- It was stated that the pipes were shipped in good onW and condition, but that the Now Zealand Shippin? Company had failed to deliver them in that order.

Ihn. ground of defence put forward bv kei\7 Zealand Sliinping Comnany was that the loss bad not arisen from any breach of contract on its part. Prior tn the shipment of the pines it was alleged that Duthie and Co. l«ad caused a hand of steel or iron to be affiyod to each pipe for protective purposes. They knew (or ought to have known) that the effect of thn bands wonld be to grently increase the danger of breakage. Other defejires were insulliciencv of packing, and a plea of non-responsil'ility for castings.

Mr. C.. B. Morison appeared for the plaintiffs (John DutMe and Co.. Ltd ) nnd Mr. H. «. Bell. K. 0., with him Mr. G. H. 'Fell, for the New Zealand Shippin" Company. °

Hearing of evidence had not concluded when the Court adjourned on the previous evening. Aα there had been no issue of damage for the jury, Mr. Bell opened, and had completed his evidence on Monday, but Mr. Morison had still several witnesses to call. '

Oerald Fitzgerald, engineer, who h.id given evidence on the previous afternoon, stated that, since the Court,had adjourned on the previous afternoon," he had made an examination of some of the pipe.?. They wers cast as well as it «n possible to cast them. The bead was of a thickness that would prevent them from being stacked so as to have more than four points of contact..

In cross-examination, witness explained the nature of the experiments which he had carried out, and adhered to his statement as to tho result.

James Murray Morice, acting-city engineer, gave evidence on' similar lines to the'previbus witness. He also stated that it was usual for water-pipes to have tho beading on one end..

J. H. N. A. Burns. Wellington manager of the New Zealand Shipping Co., stated that he understood that the- company's loading in London was carried out by contract at so much per ton. There was an officer of the company who acted'.as superintending stevedore.

W. G.. Duthie, manager of J. Duthie' and' Co., Ltd., stated that tho term "castings" was not understood to apply to these pipes. There., were no bands on the 12in. or loin, pipes. Witness also gave evidence as to the number of breakages.

■ John ■ Dutliic, director of the firm of J. Duthie and Co.. Ltd.. stated that on a, recent visit to England ho had visited Nottinghamshire, and had gone to tho works to sco if it was the practice to pat bauds on tho pipes. Ho had found that a regular staff was kept for this part of the business, and that tli3 bands wero put on all the pipes for export. Witness had been importing pipes for 40 years. ' To Mr. Bell: In the old days of sailing vessels it was the practice to stow pines with dunnage. It was only in rncou , ; years that steamers, in tlieir hurry, had carried largi pipes stowed without dunnage.

Evidence in support of tho plaintiff's case was also given by Peter Brown, stevedore; W. J. Bridson, manager of Briscoe and Co., Ltd.; and A. D. Korr, manager 0/ E. W. Hills and Company's indent department.

At the closo. of the evidence, it wa3 agreed to submit two questions to tho jury:—

1. Whether the pipee are "castings" within the mercantile use of tho word ? 2. Whether the damage was caused by improper stowage? Other questions were left, for tho learned Judge with power to draw any conclusions of fact not inconsistent with tho jury's finding.

Mr. Bel! intimated that, while lie agreed with the form of the first, question, he did not agrco Unit it was a question for tin- jury.

Mr. Morijon. Ih'l'oic .iil(li'e;<ins the jury, informed his ffononr th.'it. the , ammini. i)f the claim now r lood nl .tilt 17s: 1<1., , but there might bo an alteration in the amount by auangmsut betwecu the

The jury retired al. a f|Uarler to one o'i'bek, and returned after the lunch hour. Tlieir answer-to Ihe first question was "Nn. not. in tho mercantile fiMi.se,"

niul to thn second question, "Yes." The raso has nov; be-on reserved for argument c>ll the Jaw points.