STOWAWAY'S FARE

Evening Star, Issue 16992, 14 March 1919, Page 6

STOWAWAY'S FARE

MONEY HELD BY SHIPOWNERS. The discovery of six stowaways on the steamer Manuka between Wellington and Sydney -was recalled in the Wellington Magistrate’s Court, when one of the man concerned, Michael O’Connor, proceeded against the Union .Steam Ship Company to recover £2B 14s Id held by the company. When discovered O’Connor had £2B 14a Id in his possession, and that amount was handed to tho purser of the Moeraki, in which O'Connor was returned to Wellington. On August 23 lie was charged with leaving New Zealand without a permit, and was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. He was also charged 'with having stowed away, and on that charge ha was convicted and ordered to pay £9, the amount of fare evaded, in default, one month’s imprisonment cumulative on the term of three months’ imprisonment for the first offence. O'Connor served the full terms of imprisonment. The defendant company admitted that the plaintiff was entitled to the amount they held in hand (£2B 14a Id), less the fare (£9) and 4s 5d for goods supplied, and had paid tho balance into court. Mr H. F. O’Leary, who appeared for the plaintiff, hold that tho prosecution had been made on behalf of the defendant company, and therefore, as O’Connor had already spent the alternative month in gpol, he was relieved of liability, either criminal or civil. O’Connor had already suffered the maximum penalty for his failure to make payment, and, counsel held, in equity and good conscience, judgment should not go against plaintiff. As a matter of fact, O’Connor was anxious to pay the £9 at the conclusion of the first three months in gaol, and made application to the gaol authorities, but neither they nor the police authorities had tho money in hand, and as O’Connor was unable to make the, necessary inquiries ho was not aware that the company held his money, and therefore had to remain in gaol. Mr P. Levi, who appeared on behalf of the defendant company, contended that the prosecution was purely a police action, and not taken on behalf of the company. Tho debt of £9, he held, was a debt of contract, for by going on board the boat ■ O’Connor contracted to pay that_ amount. i The fact that the man suffered imprisonment was certainly of no benefit to the company. Further, the Court ordered that the fare should be paid, and that fare, contended Mr Levi, was Included In the sum held by tho company. He doubted whether the Court had power to order O’Connor to pay his fare to the company; they bad power to fine or imprison him. Judgment was reserved