THE WAKATU CASE.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 59, 3 December 1907, Page 7

THE WAKATU CASE.

, « DEFINITION OF A FIREMAN'S DUTIES. INFORMATION DISMISSED. A case of considerable importance to the owners of small steamers was decided yesterday,' when Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.JI., gave judgment in the case of the Marine Department v. James Wills, master of the steamer Wakatii, a charge under the Shipping and Seamen's Act of having employed two seamen in x capacity other than that for which they were engaged, as shown by the .agreement. Sub-section 4of Section 51, under which the information was laid, yjrovided that a seaman carried in accordance with tho requirements of the third schedule, as in this case, should not, except in cases of emergency, be employed on board a ship in a capacity other than that, for which ho was engaged as shown by tho agreement. Section y 4 dofined a seaman as any person employed or engaged in any capacity on hoard any ship (except masters, pilots, and duly indentured apprentices). This definition was a general one, the word being used in a narrower sense in parts of tho Act to distinguish an able seaman or ordinary seaman from other members of the crew, but tho Act did not defino the duties of any particular seaman. Defendant admitted that his two firemen did greasing work, and contended that this was the. general practice on small vessels like .the Wakatii. It was argued for tho defence: —(1) That it was doubtful : if the Shipping and Seamen's Act was in force in the Dominion, as the provisions of the Constitution Act for notifying the assent of the. King to tho Act had not beoiv complied with; (i) that Sub-section '1 of Section 51 did not create an offence, and the information did not discloso one, as tho Act, if in force "in New Zealand, did iiot .require steamers like tho Wakatii to.carry greasers, ; and' the sub-section ther6fore did not apply to firemen carried, according' to the third schedule, on vessels under 750horse power. . ..■ • His Worship quoted the sections of the Constitution Act bearing on the first point, and held that the mandatory parts of the section had not been complied with. As to the second objection, tho Court hold that Sub-section 4 of Section 51 createu an offence for which a penalty was provided by Section 331, which aimed at ensuring efficiency among the members of tho crow carried, by virtue of the third schedule, and only applied to them. Thus, if a cook or steward -was .employed in-a capacity other than that for which engaged, there would bo no breach of tho sub-section, because, although thoso persons were seamen within the meaning of tho definition, they were not carried in accordance. with tho third schedule. So, for other reasons, it was argued that the present, alleged offenco did not como within the scope of tho sub-section.' If tho sub-section was read by itself literally, and it was assumod that tho duties of every fireman required to ho carried by tho third schedule were the same on every class of vessel, then the Court thought tho facts admitted would amount to an otfanco; but a fireman's duty was nowhere defined by the Act. The facts had to bo gathered from the evidence, an:l His Worship thought the different conditions existing in different classes of steamers had been recognised by the third schedule. Thero was nothing in it to shoiv that the' intention of the schedule wns to make tho duties of a fireman similar on every class of vessel. The omission to provide for greasing, which was necessary on every steamer, rather pointed to tho conclusion that on vessels under 750horse power a fireman's duties were, considered Co bo of a more general character than those' performed by' him on larger vessels. In small steamers the voyages were short, tho engines small, and the* stoke-hold and engine-room wore in ono compartment, tho space being limited and the work of .such a nature thnt a division of labour »ts unnecessary. The. fireman's work was general, Jor. he 'added to the offico of firing that of greashig tho engines and trimming' if it was required. When the vessel exceeded 750horso power the boilers increased in number, tho engine-room and stoke-holtl were separate compartments, the.amount, of work was considerably increased, and a division of labour became necessary, as the general firemen could no longer perform efficiently the duties which they could carry out on a sniilljr stc.amer. Greasers were then .specially iinquired by the schedule owing to the altered conditions and the necessity to maintain tho standard of efficiency. If the schedulo was complied with, and by Sub-section 4 of Section 51 an o.fence was committed under the present circumstances, then-on* rosu'r was that, altha'-igh the schedule pros -and (he proper number of seamen to he earrie.l in steamors over 750-horsc power, it did not do so. for vessels under that power, and tho master of a small steamer could only ascertain that ho. w.is not complying with tho Act by a reference to Sub-section 4 of Section 51. After reference to the subjection the number of extra greasers or trimmers wns left to tho option of each particular master. Further, if it was compulsory for a master to carry greasers or trimmers not proscribed by the schedule, these extra men could bo employed in any other capacity on the vossel, because they would iiot be seamen carried in accordance with tho third schedule, rho sub-section would therefore apply to greasers and trimmers carried on steamers of over (50 horse-power, but not to greasers and trimmers carried on steamers under 750 horse-power. In conclusion. His Worship hold that defendant having committed an offence against Section 51. The information would ho' dismissed without costs. Mr. Myers appeared for the Marino Department, and Mr. Herdman for tho defence.