BROKEN CONTRACT

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 48, 20 November 1925, Page 13

BROKEN CONTRACT

DISCHARGED SEAMAN’S i , CLAIM \ “CAPTAIN WAS QUITE. '' RIGHT,” SAYS MAGISTRATE By Telegraph—Bbbss AssociationAuckland, November 19. ' Wrongful dismissal was alleged by, Robert Leisk, a seaman from the Matakana (represented by Mr. Holmden); in proceeding against 11. P. Thurston, • master of the vessel (for whom - Mr. R. MeVeagh” appeared), in the Magistrate’s Court to-day on a charge of, discharging him without having ob-. tained proper authorisation in accord-;,: ance with. the<Merchant Shipping Act. Leisk stated in evidence that he signed on the Matakana in London for. three years. With other seamen he recently went on strike and served a sentence of one month’s imprisonment, which terminated last Friday. He had been informed that he was discharged from the ship on Septemher 8. > , . , Mr. MeVeagh: With other members , of the crew you decided to put compulsion on the shipowners? Plaintiff: Yes. >■ In other words, it was a mutiny?.—’ “Not exactly that.” ; It was at least grave insubordination?—“Yes.” Mr. McVeagh submitted that Leisk had not proved his allegation. He contended that the conditions of;: dijchargfc as provided in the Merchant Ship[/ing Act referred to a mutual agreement between master and seaman ; they did not apply to a discharge resulting from serious insubordination.The master of a ship was entitled/to discharge a seaman found guilty of grave misconduct. Y. Mr. Holmden said that the discharge should hav.e been endorsed by -the superintendent of marine. Mr. DieVeagh: It ’ was actually, ;'a conspiracy against the shipowners. Mr. Holmden: He paid tlie penalty.Mr. McVeagh: The employers’-loss was £3OO a day. - ->< =:• The Magistrate (Mr; Hunt) : The men came to this country and refused. ..to work. They have a joyous time ashore except when they are in gaol. It appears that this man deliberately broke his contract and now has tlie impudence to ask the captain to be penalised. lam not going to do . it. I think the captain was quite right. The case was dismissed, costs being allowed to defendant. j::

“Not One Penny Piece.” Another case arising out of the strike was heard before Mr. Hunt, when two seatpen, Wallace Bowden and John Whitehead, efich claimed £lO wages from the master of the Matakana for work done from September 8 to October 8. Mr. Fraer submitted that plaintiffs were entitlediAo payment even though they had refused to take the ship to sea. '-.y Whitehead gave evidence regarding work extending over the month. The Magistrate: Did you take the ship to sea? .Plaintiff: No. Did you refuse? —“Yes.” The Magistrate: Then judgment is for defendant. You did not do your duty.

Air. Fraer entered an objection

The Magistrate: I got tout of him in a minute what might have taken you half an hour. lam not going to allow him one penny piece. Mr. Fraer: On what grounds ?

The Magistrate: On the grounds already given. You can appeal if you think there Js anything in it. Judgment was entered for defend-, ant with costs.