BY WHAT RIGHT?

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 47, 19 November 1925, Page 6

BY WHAT RIGHT?

SEAMAN’S CLAIM AGAINST CAPTAIN , JUDGE REFUSES TO DETAIN SHIP By Tbleokafu—Press Association Auckland, November 13. One of the crew of the steamer Matakana applied in tire Supreme Court for an order restraining >he captain trom sailing from Aucikand wituout him. Mr. Justice Reed said he was not prepared to make an order compelling tile master to take the man away. Whatever damage had be-.,, suttered by the seaman could be recovered, if he had any rights. One could not shut one’s eyes to facts, and he was not prepared, tn the tact of what was known to be virtually mutiny, to detain a big British ship in such circumstances. John Cain, the applicant, signed on as a trimmer in Rondon for three years from July, 1925. He claimed £‘2a damages. ' Counsel for Cain (Mr. Holmden) said that plaintiff contended that he was still undischarged and had certain rights at law. Mr. Justice Reed: Do you contend that a seaman on the articles has a right to please himself whether he shall work or not, to stay off as long as he pleases, and then demand to be taken back ? Is he entitled to hold up a big shin? Mr. Holmden said the master had his remedy, to apply for the seaman : discharge. Strikers had been punished by imprisonment, and as a result of tjn’s imprisonment they had decided to return to their ships. He submitted that they should not be punished twice.

His Honpur: Hasn’t the company the right to fill up a vacancy if a man deserts and refuses to work ? Hasn’t the company the right to put another man in his place? Mr. Holmden: The seaman mils' first be 'discharged. His Honour: Wnat you ask me to do is to say the company is to take the men Home, or io carry them as passengers. Mr. Holmden said that under the Merchant Shipping Act a seaman could not be discharged unless for desertion, and. these men did not desert. Mr. McVeiyh: No. they mutinied.

The application was refused, costs and disbursements being allowed defendant.