LANDSMEN OR SEAMEN.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16494, 3 August 1921, Page 7

LANDSMEN OR SEAMEN.

SAILORS* HOME MATTER. A complaint that two seamen from the s.s. Shropshire had been unable to obtain accommodation at the Lyttelton Sailors’ Home while landsmen were occupying the building was again mentioned at the Lyttelton Harbour Board’s meeting to-day, when, the board held over a report by the matron in charge of the home. The complaint under discussion was forwarded by Mr F. G. Norton, who said that two sailors, who stated that they had stayed at the home on previous occasions, called for lodgings, and were told that the place was full. These two men seemed to have a grievance against the Harbour Board for allowing so many landsmen to be accommodated at the home, causing the sailor-man to seek shelter in tho hotels and eventually landing many of them in the cells of the police station. The matron, in her report, stated that she could not identify the two seamen referred to, but she recollected refusing as boarders two men from the Shropshire who were the worse for liquor. She had been instructed to use her discretion in these matters, and she had tried to use it fairly. Even with the present standard, the loss caused by'damage to beddintr and the rooms through men getting liquor was considerable. In regard to the complaint that landsmen were accommodated at the home, to the exclusion of sailor-men, she asked every applicant for admission if he was a. seaman, and also asked, to see the discharges. In this matter also she had been instructed t-o use her discretion as to who was a seaman. It would make her responsibility lighter were the committee to define how long a seaman might be ashore before he was to be called a landsman and refused accommodation at the home, but it would probablv cut down the number of boarders. However, a few so-called _ “permanent” boarders were a financial help, as regards income, in slack times. Tn a postscript to her report, the matron added: “Since writing the above, I have found out. that the two men mentioned above were sentenced to one month’s imprisonment or fined £5 for using obscene language on June 6, 1921. Neither of the two men had money enough to pay the fines, so they were imprisoned for a fortnight, when some friends paid their fines the two being released, signed on ships, and have now left the port.”