A QUESTION OF WAGES. PECULIAR SHIPPING CASE.

Evening Post, Volume LIX, Issue 128, 31 May 1900, Page 6

A QUESTION OF WAGES. PECULIAR SHIPPING CASE.

An interesting case was Ijfrought before the Magistrate this morning, the parties being Edward Taylor, seaman, and William Rennie, master of the Sarah and Mary, while the claim was for £12 15s 6d wages, and damages for loss sustained through Rennie refusing to sign defendant and other seamen named clear of the vessel. Mr. Bindmarsh. said th,e case , was brought by the Federated Seamen's Union on behalf of plaintiff and the other seanatli. They signed the articles at Dunedin, and one of the provisions "was that the agreement could be terminated on either side by 24 hours' notice. On arrival at Wellington the men, who were Gisra.tisried. -witta the vessel, gave 24 hours' notice, which expired on Saturday. On that day, however, the captain refused to pay the men their money or even to give them food, though they were allowed to sleep on board. They had no food f rom Saturday till the Mon-tl-iy evening, when they were looked after by the Seamen's Union. On Tuesday dJendant offered to pay them off, bui they then refused to accept it, claiming that they were entiled to damages for their discharges being withheld. Mr. Skerrett (for defendant) said he made no difficulty- about the wages up to Saturday. His Worship — Why didn'* he pay them on the Saturday? Mr. Skerrett replied that the impression had prevailed among masters generaUy that tie 24 horns notice applied only to the terminal port of the voyage. It would be in the interests of sailors were that so. Besides, the notice terminated at 2 p.m. on Saturday, and the men could not be paid then as the office of the Superintendent of Marine was closed. Captain Rennie on the Monday gave each of the men their fare to come in from Petone to meet him at the Superintendent's office,, but they did not turn up till after hours, and tnen the captain had gone back to the snip at Petone. Mr. Hindmarsh, in support of the claim for damages, .said that a seamen could not get employment without his previous discharge, which had in this case been withheld for three days. This action was brought for the purpose of insisting that the men were paid at the proper time. Mr. Skerrett went into the provisions of the Shipping and Seamen's Act, contending that there was not the slightest reason why damages should be allowed, but even if there was, plaintiff's counsel had not shown tha. the Court had power to allow it. Evidence for the plaintiff wa.« given by Mr. Jones (Secretary of the Union referred to) and by one of the seamen, •while Captain Smith (Marine Superintendent) was briefly examined for the defendant. Ultimately, after -further • argument, his Worship, .xfter commenting on the captain not allowing the men food, said he would allow the four men 6s each as damages, and gave judgment for plaintiff for £8 4s, without costs.