REGENT SEAMEN'S STRIKE

Evening Star, Issue 18259, 26 April 1923, Page 6

REGENT SEAMEN'S STRIKE

CLAIMS AGAINST PALOONA MEN DISMISSED. KINI AND OOEINNA CREWS FINED, A number of cases in which tho ln j spcctor of Awards claimed a penalty or £lO from seamen for a broach of tho Otago and Southland seamen and firemen’s award were heard in tiro Magistrate’s Court to-day before Mr J. K. Bartholomew, S.M. Tho breach of the award alleged in each case was with being a .party to a strike while bound by an award. Mr_ F. B. Adams conducted the prosecution and Mr A. C. Hanlon appeared for the majority of tho defendants. The court first dealt with the claim against seventeen men from the steamer Paloona.

Cpptain Doorly, who was master ot tho Paloona in November last, said there had been trouble with the crow in Melbourne. A combined effort waa made to stop the ship from proceeding to sea because it was alleged there was aUshortago of men. As it was, tho ship carried four men in excess of legal requirements, but two men short of what tho company usually carried. An effort was made to secure two more men, but none would sign on unless tho Australian rates of pay, slightly greater than tho New Zealand rates, were paid. About twenty-nine men were taken to gaol in_ Melbourne, and witness went to see them every day whilst they wero there. An appeal was made against tho magistrate’s order, and when it was disposed of against them they canto back and worked the ship. Two stokers who were passengers on tho vessel wero ollered work, and agreed to accept it. ■Witness proceeded to take those two men to the gaol to see the men there, hut ho was interrupted on tho way by the secretary of tho Seamen’s Union in Victoria. Finally the two men signed on, and when the men came out of gaol tho ship proceeded to Bluff. No trouble at all was experienced on the way over, hut at Bluff the crow gave twenty-four hours' notice. Asked for their reason, they said that free labor was going to bo put on the vessel. Tho Kafori was in port, with free labor aboard, and there was some trouble between the crews that night. As tho Karori was sailing past the Paloona tho crow of Iho latter bombarded tho free laborers with empty beer bottles, coal, and potatoes. The men left the Paloona when she reached Dunedin. Witness said the men whoso names were on tho list read by Mr Adams had been on tho ship, Mr Hanlon said it had to he proved that tho men were on tho ship’s articles.

His Worship said they had more than that—they knew that these men had been in gaol in Melbourne. Mr Hanlon: Perhaps they were not legally in gaol.

In reply to Mr Hanlon, witness said ho went to the gaol to induce tho men to take tho ship hack to New Zealand.

Mr Hanlon, in addressing the, court,, said tho articles should have been produced before secondary evidence was permissible. If the men on tho Paloona had gone on strike, he contended that they had been punished by being sent to gaol in Melbourne. They brought the ship back to Now Zealand, and when they loft the ship here they eontinned the aid- which they committed in Australia. He contended it would he unjust, to punish them again here.

Mr Adams said that if it were essential for tho ship’s articles to he produced ho would ask for an opportunity to do so. What the court was asking tho men to he punished for was a sub 5 sequent act comm it ted in New Zealand. Although they were punished in Australia. the men did not have the liberty and license to bo able to infringe tho law hero without punishment. The judgment of n court in Australia could not lie, an estopped in New Zealand. Mr Hanlon: But surely a man ran’t 1.0 punished twice for tho same offence

Mr Adams said that he had not looked up tho matter, hut it was a point of English law. His Worship agreed with Mr Adams, but jocularly remarked to Mr Hanlon! “ Of course, a man could not bo hanged twice.”

Tfis Worship, in giving his decision, said that tlm technicalities wore in favor of the prosecution in the present ease. Though there had been a tcch* ideal breach of tlio a proem cut, lie did not think this was a ease in which Iho court was called upon to exercise its punitive piridieidnn. A magistrate had power .after hearing the drenmstanees of a ease to dismiss the proceedings, an! ho thought that right should Im exorcised in the present eases. The men had already been punished for the strike, which was the .substance of the present proceedings. Tlio claim against each defendant would therefore be dismissed. In the case of seamen from the Knu and the C'orinnn counsel agreed to accept. evidence given in previous cams, and I!is Worship dealt with them as follows: — , V.Wrdle, C. Ungers, J. MTherKon. J. Fkog. U. P. M'C’ormack, b. Dillingham, of (lie s.s. Kini, were each lined £2. with costs (Cl Os). . A. MTntyre, J. Keenan, J. Howie, D. JdtKenzie, C. Andrews, ,7. Hmlson, J. (lorry. J. Onlrani, C. David, G. Purcdl, W. Dcnniston, J. A. M'Lenn, Vv. ‘Gregor, of the s.s. Cortona, were cadi fined £2, with costs (£1 Os).