CRIMPING OF SEAMEN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13482, 8 May 1907, Page 8

CRIMPING OF SEAMEN.

A QUESTION OF LAW. | '"■j.' : -• •■■■."■•■ - ." f The adjourned hearing of the case in which James Johnson is charged with having unlawfully engaged a. seaman to i work on the s.s. : Sterling ;in December last was concluded before Mr. R. W. Dyer, S.M., in the Police Court; yesterday. Mr. S. Mays prosecuted on behalf of the superintendent of • the mercantile marine (Captain Hemming), and Mr. Lowrie defended. " ' " ' ' .' ■■ " " I Captain Hemming said that; in August, 1905, he warned the defendant in writing not to engage, or to be concerned in-en-gaging ;'. or supplying, - seamen for shipping. He had ; also warned him several times since. .;. Defendant said that he had merely told the.seaman Gardiner that the, master of the Sterling wanted an A.B. He admitted that he had given Gardiner j Captain Murray's telegram, authorising him to engage a seaman, but could not say what his idea was in handing the telegram to the seaman. \ ■'■ . - - Cross-examined by Mr. Mays, defendant denied I having engaged two seamen on the same day for the s.s. Surrey and another A.B. three days afterwards for the scow Reliance., He admitted that since the warning from the Marine Department he had received payments at various times for engaging and supplying seamen. John Kneen,* called by the prosecution, said he heard defendant engage two firemen for the steamer Surrey in December last. l ' . : - Captain ■ Flemming, recalled, denied the defendant's statement that be (Captain Hemming) had given the defendant to understand that he could engage seamen so long as he did not receive ' any payment from the men. Mr. Dyer held that, on the facts before him. Johnson had engaged the seaman Gardiner, for the steamer Sterling. :■■ An interesting argument ensued as to whether, under section 38 of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1903, Johnson : was liable in law. Mr. Lowrio contended that it was permissible for any of the persons • named in the Act' to employ any other persons to engage or supply seamen, and that the magistrate ought to find that this was the plain meaning of sub-section B, under which the prosecution was laid. Mr. Mays traced sthe history of section 38, through the English Mercantile Acts of 1854 and 1894, and, the New Zealand Shipping Act of 1877, and quoted: two English decisions thereon. He drew the Court's attention to the fact that, although section 111 of the English Act of 1894 was analogous to section.3B, yet in all the cases referred to by the defence it had never' been raised in < England. If such-a defence was possible, it must undoubtedly have been vailed of when the matter was before the English Courts. On the other hand, it was clear that the purpose of the section was to prevent crimping, and it. was laid down in the Act of 1903 that the master and officers of a • ship, and the owners or any persons in their constant em-, ployment, or the superintendent! of marine, when previously licensed by the Minister for Marine, could all engage, or be employed to engage, seamen. ; The last-men-tioned Act, however, had abolished licensed ship masters, and now only those persons named in the Act could engage, or be employed to engage, crews. : >% Unless this meaning was given to section 38, then subsection B absolutely nullified sub-section A, and instead of the Act practically doing away with all possibility, of crimping, it would,,' on the other hand, : give * every facility to all and every class of persons to carry on what had long been recognised as a most dangerous practice. ; : The meaning of section 38 was perfectly clear. If any other meaning were given to it; the -whole of the legislation in ; this direction-would be set at naught. ' ; : The; magistrate reserved his decision.