THE WAGES OF DESERTING SEAMEN. WHO SHOULD DECRKE THEIR FORFEITURE?

Evening Post, Volume LXIII, Issue 97, 24 April 1902, Page 6

T HE WAGES OF DESERTING SEAMEN. WHO SHOULD DECRKE THEIR FORFEITURE?

A seaman who whs left behind by his blup through his becoming drunk, and who was logged as a deserter, sued the master of the ship this morning for wages that were due to him and that had been treated as forfeited. Plaintiff sought to prove (1) that he had had no intention of deserting, and had not deserted ; (2) that assuming that there had been a desertion in law, the captain had no power to forfeit the wages. Tho interesting point cropped up as to whether the power of forfeiture of deserters' wages belongs to the captain or to the Courts. Tho c!uim was for £23, u:..l was brought by K. Bradley, formerly a seaman on tho transport NonOlk, against the muster, Captain Stevens. Mr."Luckie appeared for plaintiff and Mr. Dean for defendant. In Murch the transport was in Sydney, and tho chief oilicer thero told the men that if they likcil they could get their discharges. PlainluT ■understood this to mean that the dischaigcs could be obtained after the tiansport had gone to Brisbane and returned to Syd-. noy. The defence contended that iho statement applied only to the time fie transport was in Sydney on the occasion when the statement was made. Tho transport went to Brisbane, and plaintiit" got drunk there and wa-i left behind. Plaintiff stated that all his clothes were left on board the ship ; tho defence replied that when his clothes were snTched for tTiey could not bo found. Plaintiff, after the transport's departure, wcul to the ship's agent in Brisbane, baid ho had missed the transport, and was mlvisod to get to Sydney as bejt lie cou.U and join her. The ajjent telephoned to the A.U.S.N. Company, and asked for a place for plaintiff as a passage-worker •on ono of the Brisbane-Sydney steamers, and also made other efforts in plaintiff's behalf, including the sending of a telegram to (lie Sydney agon la concerning plaintiff's desire to got on board, the transport. Eventually she returned to Brisbane, and when plaintiff wont on board defendant refused to take him back or to pay him his wat»os due. Defendant offcud plaintifT a trip from Brisbane to Wellington as a passage -worker, but through plaintiff not turning up at the appointed hour defendant changed his inimi and ordered plaintiff ashore. Plaintiff stowed away, and nfter leaving Brisbane the boatswain put him to work, but after a couple of hours the enptaiu stopped .him, and ho did no moro work on tho voyage. The log entry, put in evidence, stated that plaintiff dc.orted, and that another mnn was employed in his place. He was offered a passngeworker's placo to New Zealand on tho chance of his a ship here, but was not entered on the books. Mr. Luckio submitted that absence through a seaman's own ncg'.ect was not proof of desertion. Ho thought it probable that there was ground for Mr. Dean's contention that the case camo un- ' dor tho Imperial Statute, the Merchant Shipping Act, 18S4, rather tbnn under the New Zealand Shipping and Seamen's Act of 1894, as plaintiff signed on at Qucenstown. The Acts were largely identical. Mr. Hnsolden, H.M., said ho wns inclined s o believe that, plaintiff did not intend 'io desert, but jet may havo been a deserter. Tho law wim that thft entry in tho log was conclusive evidence of desertion unless the. person could prove that ho had sufficient reason for leaving tho ship, such as cruel treatment or inxufiicient food. Drunkenness did not appear to bo a sufficient reason. Desertion entailed liability to forfeiture oi nil or any part of wages, but tho question v»ns what authority was to determine tho amount to be forfeited — tho captain or the Court. It was clear that as re/irds punishment for desertion by imprisonment that could not bo in tho captain's hands. Sections of (he Imperial Act were quoted, at length — by Mr. Dean to support the captain's power, and on the other hand by Mr. Luckie to establish that of the Court. The case was adjourned till Tuesday, to allow counsel to go fully into the question.