BERTH ON MARAROA.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18435, 15 June 1920, Page 4

BERTH ON MARAROA.

PASSENGER'S CLAIM. In the Magistrate's Court yesterdav, before Mr V. G Day, S.M., George Louis Ostler, builder, Christchurch (.Mr E. 'White), claimed from the Union Steam Ship Company of New Zealand, Ltd. (Mr A. F. Wright) the sum of £ll 8s 9d, alleging that the defendant company bad broken the terms of its contract by failing to provide him witu a berth for a return trip from Wellington to Lytteiton, and that he had suffered much inconvenience in quence. > ! Mr White said that plaintiff, his wife and son proceeded to Wellington by the Maori in August, 1919, having purchased three return saloon tickets. Lator on, while in Auckland, the CVree months' period having elapsed, the plaintiff applied for and was graated an extension of time. On the advice of the Auckland office, he telegraphed to the officu of the company in Wellington instructing them to book three saloon berths for Saturday night. Tho Auckland offico told him that that was all that it was necessary for him to do. When he got on the Mararoa on February 13 the steward said that he and his family could not bo given berths until the sailing lists came through. .Subsequently tho steward said that Ifo would have to wait until the boat went out into tbe stream. His wife was allotted a berth, but plaintiff and his son were given makeshift accommodation. Tho action of the company's servants had prevented plaintiff either accepting or rejecting the berth. What the company called the "omnibus" berth was not saloon accommodation. Tho plaintiff said that ho had been given an uncomfortable berth in tho hold, where there were seventy or eighty other passengers The mattress was old and anything but clean. Mr Wright said that plaintiff had been provided with a saloon berth, and if he had objected there were at least six deck cabins which he could hare had. Tho plaintiff had received •accommodation which had been provided on the Mararoa ever since the time of the exhibition. The bedding was similar ta that provided in other parts of the ship. Section 183 of the Shipping and Seamen Act said that, in the event of a person not being provided with a berth, ho might sue and recover the full amount of his passage money if the claim were made within one month of the occurrence. The plaintiff had not made his claim within a month.

The Magistrate held that the plaintiff must be nonsuited. He had let the time go by in which ho should hava taken action. The defendant company would be allowed costa.