THAT "V.G." DISCHARGE

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1826, 12 August 1913, Page 4

THAT "V.G." DISCHARGE

BY CAPTAINS.

MASTER OF S.S. PUTIKI FINED. \ (By Telesrapli—Prces. Association.) Wanganul, August 11. A defaulting ship's cook who was ro« sponsible for tlio crew ol' the I'utiki going on <st>riko recently has also been responsible foi' tlie captain being lined „tl for au error in' judgment. Caiitain Waiilstrom gave the man a "V.G." discharge, ami lor 111 is ho was prosecuted by tile Collector of Customs forgiving this reference, Knowing it to b'a lalse. Tno easo is thie lirst ol its bind in the Dominion. Thtf I,ll'osa'ution set out that an hour biA'oro tho i'utiki left tho took walked ashore, and tlio steam rr sailed without llilu. At tlio Heads tho crew .refused duty, ami tlio steamer put back to tho wharf. Tlio cook could not bo lound, and 60 another was obtained on tho return'of t'ho I'utiki.. Tho captain produced his official log at tlio Customs,. iuid it showed t'hat tho cook had cloaroil out. According to articles signed on Jiune 18, tlio cook agreed to "bdhave himself and obey tho mastor diLigently, according to tho Act." Tho prosecution contended that tho captain was not warranted in giving tho man a discharge representing that his conduct had been very good. Tho defence submitted that to have given .1 bud discliuiKo would havo been too sovene a punis'liiiieut. Captain Walilstrolu said that tho cool; had hitherto born® a good "character, but oil tho dato of tlio incident ho missed ths ship, and when out -at sea tho orew had refused duty. If 'ho had liked ho could 'liavo pulled up. tlie whole crow for tcTus. ing to do duly on tlio high seas. lie did not fool justified in tho cimjumstancos in giving tho cook a bad discharge. Onco before lie. gave a man si )>ad discharge and t'lio ship was held up for a fortnight. In the present instance .t'ho cook had sent a telegram to Wcstport that Jio lia<l missed the boat, and ho had imported, himself txr the Customs and apologised.; 'l'lio magistrate, in summing up, said that tlio captain had committed au error of judgment. There was no doubt that he was actuated by a d&sire-to laip tho cook to get other employment, but it was not ■his <Luty to do so. The captain was convicted and fined .£1 and costs.