HIMITANGI AT THE CHATHAMS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1536, 4 September 1912, Page 3

HIMITANGI AT THE CHATHAMS.

THE ANCHOR WATCH. FIREMAN IS NOT SUFFICIENT. Judgment was delivered by Mr. W. G. liiddell, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday iu tho ease of George Allport, Secretary for Marine, versus James Cairns Cowan, captain of the steamer Ifimitangi.

Tlie captain was charged with that on February 11, 1912, nt Waitangi, Chatham Islands, ho failed to have at least one. seaman on duty.on the dock of tho Ilimitangi by night.- Ho had not obtained a written exemption from the harbourmaster. Tho charge was laid under Regulation 8 of tho General Harbour Regulations, which were made in 18S3. The regulation states as follows: —

''The master of every ship in any harbour shall at all times keep on board a sufficient number of men to perform any services required for the J.iafety of the ship, and unless he has obtained a written exemption from '•■the'harbourmaster, he shall at all ■ti.mes have at least one seaman in . charge of the deck."

;■ The penalty for omission to comply with- the' regulation is one not exceeding JCIOO. .

,In' a review of the case his Worship said- that the captain admitted that on February 11 only a fireman (not an A.!B.)iiad been in charge of the deck, and that, (luring this fireman's watch the vessel had gono ashore at Waitangi. At the hearing the captain had contended that tho definition of a seaman in Section 1 of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908, included a fireman, ond that it had been the custom for some years on. small steamers for a fireman, instead of a deck hand, to take the anchor watch. Under this Act (Section 4) a seaman was defined as any person employed or engaged in any capacity on board any ship (except masters, pilots, and duly indentured apprentices). The .magistrate then went on to point out that the Shipping and Seamen Act however had a different' object from the Harbours Act, under which the case was brought. Without express reference it could.not be-said that the definition of seaman in the former was incorporatedin the latter or should bo accepted as conclusive in interpreting a regulation under the Harbours Act. "I think," continued his Worship, "that the word 'seaman/ used in the regulation, means an A.B.—or ordinary seaman as opposed to a fireman or other person emnloyed on the vessel in another capacity. Defendant will be convicted, but, as he has followed i practice which has existed for some years, a nominal penaltj' will meet the case." >■ Defendant was fined Is., with costs XI Bs. . ...

LAWYERS' COSTS,

•WRONG PROCEDURE ADOPTED. .Dr. M'Arthur, S.M., delivered judgment iii a case, in which Pield and Luckie, .solicitors, sued Robert 'Jones. Staveley for i£3l os. 10d., for services rendered, and fees paid at his wife's request and on her account, . His Worship said that JFr.<\ Staveley had brought an'action in the Magistrate's Court at Otaki for summary separation from her husband. An agreement had been come to by consent and no application hadbeen made for costs. Tho plaintiffs now.sued as stated above. "I am of opinion that they (plaintiffs) cannot succeed," continued his Worship. "It. is laid down in the laws of England that the wife's implied authority to pledge the husband's credit for costs does not extend to the costs or incidental to an application to a court of summary jurisdiction, for a separation 'or maintenance order, because the Court to which any such application is made has been given exclusive jurisdiction over such costs. ... I am of opinion that tho plaintiffs' application for costs should have been made in the' Court at Otaki when the co.mplaint was being heard." Judgment was given for the defendant with costs.

BIJOU THEATRE. A CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. H. Hooper, commission agent, Wellington, sued Lionel Caselberg, manufacturers' agent, Wellington, for £i, as the balance of an amount alleged to have been due as commission agfwd to be paid by Caselberg to Hooper for the letter's letting of the Bijou Theatre. . The case was heard by Mr. W. G. Eiddell, S.M. Mr. 1\ P. Kelly appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. C. A. Hislop for the defendant. Defendant denied personal liability. The liability, he said,.was the company's, which was in a sort of moribund'condition. He had paid £6 of defendant's claim, but had only , done so on behalf of the company, and he. had debited the company with the money he had. paid. His Worship decided in favour of the plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs 12s. "WHAT IS THE USE?" IF AWARD IS.GONE BEHIND. Denis Carmody, Inspector of Awards, claimed JHOfrom C. and A. Oulin,' Ltd., timber merchants, Wellington, as a penalty for a breach of the Wellington Carpenters' and Joiners' Award, because, he alleged, the defendants tad paid Francis J. M'Donakl at'the rate of Is. per hour, instead of Is. •lid. per hour; and, also, he claimed a ;£lO penalty for defendants' having paid William Alfred Lambert Is. Id. per hour, instead of Is. ild. per hour. Tho case was heard by Dr. M'Arthur, S.M. ■■'.■■

Mr. H. E. Evans, who appeared for the defendants, said that the breach had been committed through the defendants' ignorance of the meaning of the award. Tho workers concerned in tho case had been apprentices to the defendants. The terra of apprenticeship had been extended, and the defendauts had been unaware that in doing this they had broken tho award. Mr. Carmody said 4hat it was only by way of an under-ratc worker's permit that loss than award rates could be paid. Dr. M'Arthur: What is the use. of having an award if it is to bo gono behind like this? Defendants were fined £3 on each charge.

OTHER CASES. AN ALLEGED LOAN. John Edwards, settlor, of Remuera, Auckland, proceeded against Mrs. Amy Louisa Nott, of Palmorston North, claiming .CIGS (being t £lso alleged loan, and ,£ls interest). Mr. R. B. Williams appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Blair for the defendant. The ease was partly heard by Dr. M'Atthur, and then adjourned sine die. \

UNDEFENDED CASES. In the follow-in.? cases Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.. entered judgment for the plaintiffs by default:— "Levin find Co., Ltd., v. A. E. Dixon and Co., £."!"> 2s. Id., costs oCI 12s. Gd.; Patrick and Co. v. Jack Waiwcra, ;£8 125., ftiul'.£l Its. Gd.; Wellington Publishing Company, Ltd., v. A. G. Cunningham, JE4S 10s., and »C 3 Is.; The Wellington Traders' Agency (as assignees of Alfred Lovi) v. Patrick IVasev Itowden, .£2 10.?., and 10s.-, Nellie St. Lojjcr v. Walter Taylor, £i, and 135.; .Murdock M'Leod v. Lawrence Jl'Corthy. £\ 13s. Ski., and 10s.; William Brown v. Frank Edward Meyrick, XI, am! 55.: I same v. A. Lines, Us., and 55.; Wry and Co.. Ltd., v. A. Lines, .£5 fls. (kl., and Bs.; Official Assipiao, in Hie estate of Fredcrick James .\laiui, v. George Wilkins. -fin J 2-s.', and ,£1 7s. 6d.; Arthur and Lanco Georgo t. William iHcmrj- Foster, os. .ld,i aadJLOe.i. ewfijt jVUljyaJVfuaj^

£3 Gs. Id., and 10s.; John Chamtors and Son, Ltd., v. George Sl'Kny, £;> 4s. 9d., and £1 3s. Get.; J)ickeuson and Co. v. James Jordun, £2 ss. lid., and 10s.

JUDGMENT SUMSIONS. James 1-Jusiago was ordered to pay J. K. Fitzgerald 11s. 6d.-by September 1".

POLICE BUSINESS. (Before Mr." W. G. Riddell, S.M.) For insobriety, Marv Margaret Jlambling was fined 10s., and John Ranisan £2. Walter Ja.nes Husler pleaded guilty to a. charge of his having .stolen a saddle and bridle, valued at .£2, the property of Henry Bodley. He'was sentenced to tliroo months' iinnrisonmont.