THE STEAMER JUNE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21241, 23 January 1931, Page 3

THE STEAMER JUNE.

CHARGE AGAINST MASTER. * INFORMATION DISMISSED. In the City Police Court yesterday, Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., gave his reserved decision in the case in which Thor Olaf Hannevig, master of the Norwegian steamer June, was charged with having proceeded from Lyttelton to Port Chalmers without a full crew in contravention of section 56 of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908. At the original hearing of the case the question of the court’s jurisdiction in the matter was raised, and the magistrate then intimated that he would take time to consider whether the court had power to deal with the information. Mr W. D. Taylor appeared for the informants (the Marine Department) and Mr A. N. Haggitt for the defendant. “The June is a Norwegian ship, and, although charged in respect of a voyage between Lyttelton and Port Chalmers, is not engaged in the coastal trade, and does not come within the definition of ‘ home trade ship,’ ” said the magistrate. “ Extracts from the ship’s log and admissions made establish that the ship from June. 1930, came within the finition of ‘ intercolonial trading ship ’ in the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908. “Section 54 (1) provides that all ships engaged in the home or intercolonial trade, and whether registered in New Zealand or otherwise, shall carry the number of seamen, etc., specified in the fourth schedule. It was admitted that the June did not have the prescribed complement. In Tait v. Cullen Mr Justice Williams stated:— 1 I am satisfied that the words “all ships engaged in the home or intercolonial trade ” simply mean all ships included in the definition of.home trade ship and intercolonial trading ship.’ Section 2, subsection (1), of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908, stated that the Act applied to all British ships, but this subsection was repealed by the amending Act of 1909. so the Act is not now in terms limited to British ships, and, read literally section 54 applies to all ships. “Mr Haggitt, for the defendant, contends that the New Zealand Legislature has no jurisdiction to apply this provision to foreign ships, being intercolonial trading ships. The Dominion’s power of legislation is expressed_ in the Constitution Act and the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. section 736, which declares that the Legislature of a British possession may by any Act or ordinance regulate the coasting trade of that British possession.’ “In the case of Captain of s.s. Durham v. Collector of Customs, Mr Justice Chapman stated; ‘Shipping Acts form a branch of the law as to which conflict of laws between sovereign States may well arise, and similar conflicts may arise between the enactments of several legislatures within the Empire. To avoid such conflicts as between the legislatures of Now Zealand and the Empire, section 2 of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908, was passed. It declares that, with certain named exceptions, the Act shall apply to all British ships registered at or trading with or being; at any place within the jurisdiction of New Zealand. It further declares that the provisions of this Act shall be so contnied as not to exceed the legislature powers conferred on the General Assembly by the Constitution Act. It may be assumed that the reference to the Constitution Act includes a reference to section 736 of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as that section modifies the Constitution Act by enlarging its scope and so enlarges the ambit of the expression,' “ the peace, order, and good government of New Zealand.’” “In dealing with the construction of section 75 of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908, the learned judge states; ‘Apart from the proviso, the operative words relevant to the question under consideration would run: “It is hereby declared that w-hen the master, agent, or owner of any ship fa) engages seamen in New Zealand, or (b) having engaged them abroad, employs them in New Zealand, those seamen, while so employed, shall be paid, and may recover the current rate of wages for the time being ruling in New Zealand. Standing alone, this sentence would be ultra vires, as it does not relate exclusively to the coasting trade of New Zealand.” ’ “This, then, is a deyr authority that it is ultra vires of the New Zealand Legislature to apply the provisions of section 54 to a foreign ship employed as an ‘ intercolonial trading ship.’ Reference may also be made to the case of the award of Cooks’ and Stewards’ Union, where questions of jurisdiction ■were discussed by the Court of Appeal. “ Section 21 of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908, dealing with the complement of officers, clearly recognises the difference between British and foreign ships and the powers of the Legislature with regard to the respective ships. If section 54 is to be read as attempting to deal with a foreign ship engaged, as an ‘ intercolonial trading ship ’ it is ultra vires of the powers of the Dominion Legislature. The information is accordingly dismissed.” Security for costs in the event of a Crown appeal was fixed at £lO 10s. Mr Taylor stating that the matter would be referred to the Crown Law Office.