IMPORTANT TO SEAMEN.

Evening Post, Volume XVII, Issue 516, 22 May 1879, Page 2

IMPORTANT TO SEAMEN.

His Worship Mr. Mansford, R.M., gave judgment this morning in tbe case of Stridsburg v. Fisk. The case, which is of some importance to masters of ships and seafaring men, was heard yesterday, judgment being reserved till to-day. His Worship said :— The refusal of the plaintiff to obey the order given by the defendant, was not sufficient to ensure a conviction under tho Shipping and Seamens' Act. Such an order must be a lawful one, and the refusal to obey it wilful. Ido not think the order in this instance was of such a nature as to render the refusal to obey it wilful. The seamen had been at work all day, and at eight o'clock at night, after they had turned in, the ship being at anchor, the men were ordered to tow a punt, then lying alongside, and moor her at the place where she was usually moored some distance off. The men naturally wished to know whether such work was necessary at that time of night, and on being referred by the mate (who expressed no opinion on the matter, simply remarking that was the order be had received), to the master they were told "it was that or the boulder bank." The men without any further request being made them, returned to the forecastle, and the defendant, with the assistance of his mate, moored the punt themselves. The following day the men's food was stopped, and the day after, which was the 30th of April, the men were turned adrift without food and without money, although one month's wages were then due. The defendant had no right to take the law into his own hands. If he wero unable to take proceedings against them where he was, his proper course would bave been to bring them to Wellington and lay informations against them for refusal of duty. His conduct was of too arbitrary and harsh a character, even supposing ho intended to proceed to sea the same night, which I think is extremely doubtful. The plaintiff is clearly entitled to recover the one mouth's wages due on 30th April, and for damages sustained through wrongful dismissal I award him the sum. of £6. Judgment for plaintiff, £14 and costs.