COURT OF APPEAL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14800, 6 April 1910, Page 5

COURT OF APPEAL.

(Per United Prejs Association.) WELLINGTON, April 4. The Court of Appeal began its sittings to-day. There are nine cases on the list, which will be token in the following order:—Walt and Cohen v. Willis, a Wanganui case; HuddarUParker Company v. Collector of Custom's; Watt and others v. Wilson; Holt v. Holt; Bex v. Arnold Hare, a caso slated by Mr Justice 'Cooper; John Campbell v. District Land Registrar at Auckland; Eex v. Henry Stephen Cockburn, 'manager of Truth, a Crown casn reserved by Mr Justice Chapman; in re Hall, solicitor; Gisborne Harbour Board v. F. B. and Percival Barker; Bowron Bros., of Christohurch, v. Commissioner of Taxes.

SEAMEN'S WAGES ON AUSTRALIAN VESSELS. (Pee United Press Association.! WELLINGTON, April-5. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Sir Robert. Stout and Judges Williams, Edwards, and Chapman, sat at 10.30 this morning to hear the case of the HuddartParkor Company Proprietary v. the Collector of Customs, Wellington. This was a special case stated for the opinion of the Supreme Court, moved by consent into the Court of Appeal. The plaintiff company is _ a joint stock company incorporated in Victoria,- owning steamships, some of which trade to New Zealand, but which are registered at Melbourne, and its principal office is at Melbourne. All its contracts of service with, its officers and seamen are mado in Australia, and it pays the wages fixed by an award of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration,' which in .some cases are higher, and in some cases lower, than the wages fixed by I tho Court of. Arbitration in Now Zoa-' land. By the law of the State of Victoria, section 166 of the English Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 is adopted. The Marine Department of the New Zealand Government claimed that while the company's ships were in New Zealand ports, and also while they were travelling between two New Zealand ports, the company was bound under section 75 of " The Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908," to pay the New Zealand current rate of wages, and that under subsection 3 of that section the Collector of Customs was entitled to refuse the ship's clearance until the crew had been paid such current rate, and that seamen engaged subject to the Commonwealth award were entitled to sue the company in New Zealand lor the current rato of wages. Tho questions stated by the special caso for the opinion of tho court were as follows : (1) Does section 75 of itho Shipping and Seamen Act apply to the company's ships (a) while in New Zealand ports, (b) while at sea between New Zealand ports; (2) arc the contentions of the Marine Department well founded; (3) has the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine the right to make the endorsement mentioned in subsection 2 of section 75 on the articles of. the company's ships trading to New Zealand; (4) can the company's seamen sue the company in New Zealand for tho current rate of wages fixed by the New Zealand Court of Arbitration, notwithstanding that a different rate of wages was fixed by the articles under which they serve. Mr M. Chapman, K.C., and-Mr Hadfield appeared for the plaintiff company,-and Mr Myers for defendant. " .-

Mr Chapman, on behalf of the plaintiff company, contended that section 75 of tho New Zealand Shipping and Seamen Act must be construed by, virtu.o of section 2, so as not to exceed the limited powers of legislation conferred on the New Zealand Parliament with regard to Merchant Shipping. Those powers were limited by sections 735 and 736 of the English Merchant Shipping Act to ships registered in New Zealand. Section 75 must therefore apply only to ships registered in New Zealand, which was not the case with tho company's vessels, If it applied to ships registered in Victoria, then it was ultra vires, because it treated such ships in different way from British ships, which was contrary to section 736. • Mr Hadfield followed, contending that section 75 of tho Shipping and Seamen Act was ultra vires. . ■■'■•.■

Mr Myers, on behalf of defendant, contended that section 75 was not ultra vires, on two grounds: (1) Power was expressly given to make it by section 736 of the English Merchant Shipping Act; (2) there was power to pass such legislation by virtue of section 53 of the Constitution Act, which gave the New Zealand Parliament'power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government'of the colony. Section 75 did not penalise ships,ol"other British possessions, or impose conditions on them which were not imposed on Now Zealand ships. Subsection 3 aJi'pfieu equally to sjiips registered in New Zealand and ships registered in Victoria. The Collector had' the right to refuse a clearance to a New Zealand ship at its final port of clearance if it was going abroad. A colony had power, to legislate for the regulation of its coastwise trade, whether that trade was carried on by foreign or Home ships. It was a legitimate part of such a regulation to prescribe a minimum rate of wages, otherwise foreign ships niijht be able to compete unfairly with homo ships If the "law was clear it was the duty of the court to administer it, leaving the effect of its. decision to be determined by the Victorian courts. It might be that the plaintiff company could deduct what thev had paid in New Zealand when dischargrng their seamen at Melbourne, but whether they could or could not was no concern of the New Zealaend courts. Tho power to regulate coastwise shipping tust include power to regulate it while between port and port in New Zealand, for otherwise it would be illusory. Even if the court found that ( there was no power to enable the company's seamen to sue in New Zealand for their wages, the other three questions should bo answered in defendant's favour.

Mr Chapman replied briefly. The court reserved judgment, and adjourned at 3 o'clock.