A SEAMAN'S CLAIM.

Evening Post, Volume LXXX, Issue 20, 23 July 1910, Page 9

A SEAMAN'S CLAIM.

■ « * SANITARY CONDITIONS ON A COASTAL STEAMER. A case of interest to "those who go down to the sea in ships" was v con> menced at the Magistrate's Court on Thursday afternoon, before Mr. W. R. Haselden, S.M., when William Lovell, of Wellington, seaman, claimed £20 damages from the Wellington and Wanganui Steam Packet Company, Ltd., for an alleged failure on the part ot' defendants to comply with the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908. In his statement of claim, plaintiff set forth that while working on the steamer Huia in December last as a duly articled seaman, he contracted laryngitis, that h£ was discharged from the ship on 13th December while still suffering, and that he was ill fiom the complaint for a Eeriod of fourteen weeks. Defendants, c alleged, failed to provide for his maintenance, and to pay the equivalent of his wages up to the time of his recovery, or to the expiration of his engagement, as provided by the Shipping and Seamen, Act, with the result, it is alleged, that he suftered considerable damage. Plaintiff accordingly claimed i£2o damages for the omission on the part of defendants. Mr. A. H. HLndmarsh appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Kirkealdie foi defendants. Evidence was given by Dr. Fyffe as to Lovell's illness. Lovell declared that he contracted a cold while working in the hold of the vessel,, became ill, and was unable to work till March last. There wat. no system of ventilation in the crew's quarters, except through two small portholes, a scuttlehatch, and a doorway. At times there was no ventilation. The secretary of the union, Wm. Laughton Jones, gave corroborative evidence. Counsel for the defence submitted that plaintiff's action must rest either on a tort or a breach of contract. The latter could not be ; if the- action were based on tort, the only ground would be a breach of some statutory duty. In that case plaintiff's proper course was to lay an information with the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, or with the justices, and ask for a fine. This he could not do, because the statutory period within which such action must be taken — six months — expired on the 13th June. Moreover, if the action was based on tort, the statutory duty was on the master of the ship, not the owner, and the present proceedings were therefore directed against the wrong party. Decision was reserved until Tuesday.