OVERCROWDING ON A STEAMER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10405, 1 April 1897, Page 6

OVERCROWDING ON A STEAMER.

THE CAPTAIN OF THE MAHINAPUA FINED. Yesterday afternoon at) the Polico Court, James Robertson, captain of the s.s. Mahinapua was charged, on the information of the Collector of Customs, that on March 3rd, at Onehunga, he did have on board his ship 85 passengers, such number being in excess of the number allowed by the certificate in force with regard to the said steamship. Mr. Tole, Crown solicitor, represented the Collector of Customs, and Mr. Hugh Campbell appeared for the defendant. Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge. The explanation offered was, that when the Mahinapua was leaving New Plymouth for the Manukau, it was found that a greater number of passengers was going on board than the ship's certificate allowed. The captain did biß beet to get them to leave the ship, and warned them that they were liable to prosecution. Some of those who were warned went away, but in spite of all he could do, ten passengers in excess of the legitimate number went on board, and were brought to Onehunga. Mr. Tolo said that there was no reason to doubt the truth of this explanation, and the Collector of Customs did not wish that the full penalty, which the law allows, should be inflicted in this case. Ab the

same time he asked that such penalty be imposed as would show that tho safety of the passengers and crew ought not to be imperilled in this manner. Mr. Campbell submitted that the defendant had done all it was possible to do under the circumstances. The law allowed no power to a captain to force passengers to leave his ship and go ashore, against their will.

His Worship suggested that the prosecution should point out what the captain should have done. Mr. Tole replied that the defendant was empowered by section 205 of the Act to prosecute those who refused to leave his

ship. Besides, a captain's ship was his castle, and he had his stewards and crew to assist him in carrying out his orders. He

would ask that the fine inflicted should not be merely nominal. His Worship said that to inflict a nominal fine in this ease would be absurd. The Union Company had profited by the extra passengers. He took into consideration the facte urged by the counsel for defendant, and imposed a fine of £5, with Is a head for the ten extra passengers carried.