26 Members Of Crew Fined For Disobedience

Greymouth Evening Star, 27 April 1949, Page 4

26 Members Of Crew Fined For Disobedience

(P.A.) WELLINGTON, This Day. Twenty-six members of the crew of the Canadian ship Tridale were each fined 14 days’ pay when they were convicted in the Magistrate’s Court today of combining to disobey, the lawful commands of their cap-' tain in that they refused to sail the ship from her berth at Pipitea wharf on April 22 when ordered to do '■o. Mr P. C. P. McGavin, who appeared for the members of the crew, gave notice of appeal on the point whether or not a lawful command was given to the men at the time of the alleged offence. In applying at the outset of the hearing for an adjournment, he said that information was awaited from Canada. The Magistrate, Mr A. M. Goulding, refused the application on the grounds that the information, awaited was not specifically a reference to the charges against the men. Defence Submissions Mr McGavin submitted that . the charges should fail on three points: (1) that the registration of the ship had not been 'proved ;(2) no lawful order was made to the men to move the ship because the captain had stated that he recognised that the men were on strike; (3) that the charges had been laid improperly. Supporting his third point, Mr McGavin submitted that there was no evidence as to a combination by the men, apart from their meeting the captain in the firemen’s messroom. Mr E. D. Blundell, for the shipping company, submitted that the offence of the seamen was deliberate and should be treated as such. It was a pity, he said, that reference had been made to the industrial dispute of Canadian seamen. The defendants might have loyalty to their union, but at the same time there Were other loyalties. Marine law was similar to military law. The defendants had signed on articles under which they agreed to obey the lawful commands of the captain. Because they said they were on strike did not permit them to disobey those commands. “Astounding” View

Mr Goulding said the case narrowed itself down to a simple question: Whether the men were under a lawful command of the captain at the time of the alleged offence. He was satisfied that they were and that they had disobeyed the captain’s commands. It would be astounding, he added, to accept the suggestion of Mr McGavin, that because they were on strike the seamen would automatically cease to be bound by their articles, said the Magistrate.