THE SEAMEN'S VOTE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14359, 31 October 1908, Page 14

THE SEAMEN'S VOTE.

NECESSARY QUALIFICATIONS,

A TEST CASE.

Before the magistrato (Mr H. Y. Widdowson) at Port Chalmers yes,tarda*, Herbert. James Itoberts (steward on the s.s. Opawa) made application to have his name, inscrilitd on the electoral roll. The application had previously been refused by the registrar of electors. .Mr S, Solomon, K.C., appeared on helialf of tho applicant, and -Mr J. I l '. M. Frascr for, the registrar. -Mr Solomon faid the case was practically .an appeal from the decision of the registrar. Tho claim was made for enrolment. a* ail clector under section 78 of the Electoral Act The qualification that, must bo possessed by an elector in New Zealand under ordinary circumstances was provided for by section 26. which entitled to a vote ono who was a British subject., who had resided 12 months in the Dominion, and who had boon three months in the electoral district in which lis claimed a vote. Section 78 was specially applicable to seamen, in this way: that a eeamnn need .not. have been 12 months' resident in Iho colony previous to tho date cti which he applies for enrolment. lie wa.s deemed to lio entitled to a vote if ha had been engaged for 12 months on a ship ownod or registered in New Zealand. These wera the words bis Worship was called upon to construe in order lo determine a primary qualification lo vole. The question o! whether this particular man had a vole was a subsidiary matter. Ilis Worship; Section 26 does not apply? Mr Solomon raid that it did not. A man, to be entitled lo a vote, must have been engaged o.n a ship belonging to New Zealand for at. least 12 months, This was taken a.s a qualification in lieu of 12 months' residence in the Dominion. Sulvseet.ion B defined tho places in which a seaman was entitled to vote, anil there ivais some little doubt as to what it might mean. It said that tho seamen, might, be enrolled at, a,ny port, at which the ship usually called. In regard lo subscction A of section 78, his Worship was called upon lo say whether the ship on which the applicant was engaged was a shin cither owned or registered- in New Zealand. Kolxwts had been employed on tho s.s. Opawa. belonging lo tho New Zealand Shipping Company, and lis had been on that ship for 12 months and more, ami he had also been on tho Papanui. Tho Opawa, for some reason, had Iwen detained 'in New Zealand waters for a longer period t-ham usual, and this was how tl;e applicat ion for enrolment had com.o to be made. Tlio question, tersely put, wa.s therefore whether the Opawa, or tho Papanui (or both), was owned and registered in New Zealand. Tlie ship Opawa was registered-in London, and therefore ihe question they had to apply 'themselves to was the meaning of the words " owned in New Zealand." lie submitted t-liat the.' ordinary meaning of tlio words might, be taken. That this vessel belonged' to tho New Zealand Shipping Company there could bo no doubt. Did Mr l'Vawr dispute that?

Mr Eraser: I <b not know the fads, Mr Solomon.

Mr Solomon said that what, ho had declared would lie proved. Mt liullcck (the Lhmedin manager of the company) would satisfy them that, both the Opawa and tho Papanui belonged to the. New Zealand Shipping Company. He wouhl submit that tho company resided in Now Zealand.

Mr Frascr said ho neatl not. argue (hat. The c-ompnay had its head offico in New Zealand, and had originated there, and carried on business under our acts,

Mr Solomon said the company had its registered ofiico in New Zealand, had hwn incorporated in New Zealand, its directors lived in New Zealand, and it was carrying on lrash'Ks in New Zealand.

Tho Magistrate: Where is the head' office?

Mr Solomon: There arc two. One is at Leadenhall slrcet, in London, and tho other at Chrif-tehurch.

The Magistrate: Are the affairs of the company administered in Ohristchurch?

Mr .Solomon; Said lie could not speak definitely 011 that. Tho articles of t.ho company provided for administrative business l»mg transacted in cither place.

His Worship: Which is the principal plaoD of luioincsj?

Mt Solomon: Oil, undoubtedly in Now Zealand.

Mr Frawr: I may say that if I had been' consulted I would have advised the registrar that this company has not lost its identity by reason of most of the proprietary having transferred to London. Mr Solomon continued that it had been decided 'both in New Zealand ami Knglaml that prima facie a company was resident at. the. placc where it was registered. This company was registered in New Zealand, and had its existence here. This company had been born in the Dominion, and was a creation of the Dominion, Its original domicile was in the Dominion. Before it could Jose that- origin it must be clearly established that tho company had gono to reside elsewhere. In the present case it was quite impossible to find that this company had gone to rceido elsewhere. It «irr-ic«l 011 a large business in Now Zealand. H had a heard of directors in New Zealand. It not only bad a- statutory but an actual existence in New Zealand by this fact. The animal meeting of the company was held in Now Zealand, and its registered office was iu the Dominion. It had been held in some cases that a company, although registered in one country, did not reside in the country in which it" had liccn registered, but elsewhere. There had been tierce disputes in the courts over this point, but the courts had always leaned to tho cont-ruct.ion that a company was resident at the place when? it was regi\-lcrc<l. The New Zealand Shipping Company paid income tax to the Dominion, and'the courts of the Dominion exercised jurisdiction over the company. The particular words for the court to decide were: "Is this ship owned ill New Zealand?" The test for that was to ascertain what would happen in tho cose of the company s affairs wound up, .Should that happen, the Now Zealand Court would appoint a liquidator in the Dominion, who would be empowered to seize the ship—follow her to London, if ncoe'.vsary, in doing ?o, —and. after realising on her, account for the proceeds to tho New Zealand Court. Under these circumstances the onus .rested with the registTar of electors to prove I hat the company bad lost its domicile in Now Zealand. "That Was the view of the Attorney-general. His Worship: Is tlioro a beard of directors London as well as Christchurch? Mr Solomon: Yes. but (lie all-important point if (hat the onus lies with someone lo prove that the origin of domicile has I con •on , com P ln J' m»y «<rry 011 business 111 20 placcs, but. it has b i;P n hold that it. can only reside in one place. I contend that it resides in New Zealand, which is the only place in which jf can have a legal residence. Mr Solonicn then handed in a document 111 proof. Mr Fraser said that upon.the individual Jax the onus of making good his rMit to vote in this Dominion. It was important that, every Ina.ll who had a right bv statute to vote should exercise that nglit whenever possible. It was a very serious thing to disfranchise an elector, and the registrar recognised (Ins, and would be quite satislied if it could be shown that the gentleman had a right to vote. Iln did not dispute the fact that the New Zealand Shipping Company xvns originally a New Zealand company, and remained a New Zealand company, registered under the statuin law of 1 hat country and amenable to it. file real argument was as to tho question of ownership. 'Was. the Opawa the prnpeny of the New Zealand Shipping Company? I'h.cre was prima facie evidence aG to till!, ownership of the vessel shown in her certdicate of registry, and, according lo this, the ship was owned on the Ist January. 1907 by Messrs George Jlayeraft and Ihonias Renshaw Wcstry, botii of 13S Laadcnhall street. London.' It, was, howoxer. quite possible that these two'registered owners were merclv acting us a land of trustees 011 behalf of the"debenture?holders, awl (hat the truo ownov of tho ship was Ihe New Zealand Shipping Companv. But, on behalf of the Kegistrar of Kloetors, he had to ;x-k for detinito proof of that.

Mr Solomon: Well, what <lo you fay? Mr Fraser said that ihe matter called for an explanation. There were several books issued in connection with shipping, ami he had with him Lloyd's Register and' the Mercantile Naval List. Lloyd's Register showed the owners of the vessel lolre the company, but he was not prepared to accept that. Last year's Mercantile Naval Directory showed not the company as owners, bill, the two gentlemen whom he bad already referred 10-Messrs Jlayoraft and WcMry.

Mr Solomon paid that Lloyd's RcgiMor wa.s surely the proper authority-and the very latest issue showed the New Zealand Shipping Company as owner. Mr Fraser suggested that the company's managing director in Christcluueh lile an allidant to the effect that the ship was owned by the company, and that Messrs Ilayer.ift and Westrv were, merely trustee? on behalf of the company. Mr Solomon said lie was quite agreeable, though he did not think it necessary. He could call Mr Bullock, the local manager. Mr G. Pi. Bullock said that the owner, as shown by Lloyd's Register, was the New Zealand Shy^in^--QoigßajTC, '^' Ie

vessels Opawa and Papanui appeared in the company's balance sheets as assets of the company.

Captain Edwin Thomas Smith, master ot tlic s.s. Opawa, said she was owned by flic Now Zealand Shipping Company, from which ho received his instructions, and to which lie rendered his ship's accounts. Ho came into contact with Messrs Ilaycraft ami Wastry only as directors.

Herbert James Roberts, steward in charge on the Opawa, said lie bad been on the New Zealand Shipping Company's boats for seven years, tho last two on ihe Opawa and the l'apanni. Ife had bcon resident in tho district for three months.

Ilia Worship said ho would adjourn the case to Duncdin at 3.30 p.m., to allow of notice being received by telegraph of the filing of the affidavit- in Christchurch. On the court resuming. Mr Solomon read tho following telegram from the general manager of tlio New Zealand Shipping Company: —" It is within ifiv knowledge that tho 64 shares in the-s.s. Opawa are owned by Ihe New Zealand Shipping Company (Limited).—-(Signed) Isaac Ginns, Christchurch." \Mr Widdowson: The only point in the case so far as I am concerned is whether the ownership mentioned in the act is legal ownership or includes bcneiiciary ownership. Mr Solomon: It is both. Mr Fraser: I q.m quite satisfied that the New Zealand Shipping Company is the owner. It was my duty to raise the question. Mr Widdowson: Tho claim will be allowed. Mr Solomon said that no doubt the registrar would be instructed that any similar cases would be governed by that, which he took to be a test case. Mr Frascr: Yes!