UNUSUAL CLAIM

Evening Star, Issue 20313, 23 October 1929, Page 2

UNUSUAL CLAIM

THE ARRESTED SHIP MET! MASTERS AND SEAMEN’S WAGES His Honour Mr Justice Kennedy was engaged in the Supremo Court all day yesterday hearing the case in which A. J. Allen, Ltd., sought to recover sums advanced by them by way of wages to the captain and crew of the s.s. Oreti, and also for necessaries paid for and supplied to the steamer by the plaintiffs. The facts set out were that the Oreti was subject to a mortgage to Alexander Dunn, of Wellington, for £7OO. At the instance of the plaintiffs she was arrested in Dunedin, and, by consent of the parties, sold by the marshal of the court, the proceeds amounting to £625. The first mortgage on the steamer, however, amounted to £7OO, and there was not enough to pay the first mortgage. The present action was to establish that the plaintiffs had a maritime lien in respect of their claim, which therefore took priority, and should be a first charge on the proceeds of the sale of tho vessel, in accordance* with Admiralty law. It was subsequently stated that a claim for necessaries had been abandoned by the plaintiffs, leaving only the claim for seamen’s wages and harbour dues. Mr Hay appeared for Messrs A. J.Allen. Ltd.; Mr Lascelles (Christchurcli) for the liquidators of the company which owned the Oreti; and Mr J. S. Sinclair for the mortgagee, Cr Dunn. In addressing the court in the afternoon Mr Lascelles contended that a lien could not be transferred to tha plaintiff without appropriate procedure. Learned counsel quoted at length from legal judgments, and claimed that the plaintiffs could not claim a right which was said to rest on the master and seamen alone. Mr Sinclair submitted that his client was entitled to the whole of the money which had been obtained by the sale of the Oreti. He contended that the captain and the crew could have enforced their lieu personally, _ and, this not having been done, the lien ceased to exist. Counsel said that a maritime lien, so far as a captain was concerned, only applied to ships trading to foreign ports. The lien was to enable a captain to pledge bis ship, if necessary, and so prevent him from being stranded: in a foreign port. In a home port counsel held that such a lien did not exist. The reason was that a captain could at once get into touch with his owners, and so could the trader who was asked to supply the goods on advance moneys to the captain. Counsel submitted that once a captain had raised money from his agents, then the money so raised became a disbursement, and the captain bad no rtoht to pledge bis ship for that disbursement. Even if the captain could have given a lien to the plaintiffs, the consent of the court was first necessary. Mr Hay submitted that it was set out in important judgments that a maritime lion took priority _of mortgages. A person who paid wages, whether at the master’s request or not, if not a mere volunteer, took by subrogation the lien of ibe master and the seamen, provided he gave credit to tho shin, and not merely to the owners. The plaintiff in this case was not a volunteer, and was not meddling-Conns-l quoted judgments to prove that, a maritime lien was assignable by subrogation and without the consent of the court. , . His Honour reserved his decision.