LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2498, 26 June 1915, Page 14

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT FIREMEN ON THE TROOPSHIPS REFUSAL OF DUTY An appear from a Magistrate's Court decision occupied the attention of His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supremo Court yesterday morning. The appeal was from tho decision of Mr. D" G. A. Cooper, S.M., delivered 011 September 3 last in the cases against a number of firemen from the steamers Orari and Limerick for refusing duty on August 28, 1914. Informations had been laid against defendants, members of the crew of tho steamships Orari and Limerick, under Section 135, Sub-Section (d), of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1908, in that on August 28 they did combine to disobey tho lawful commands after tho ship was secured in safe harbour. Tho fact that the defendants refused to oboy tlie commands of tlieir officers was admitted, but it was contended on their behalf that they were justified in so refusing because the agreements under which they had signed on as members of the crow of their respective ships were broken, in that the agreements were entered into to serve on such ships as tradiug ships, but that the character of the ships had been altered by the fact that the masters or owners had entered into a contract to carry troops and horses from this Dominion to England, then in a state of war with Germany ; that by so doing the ships would not be on their return to England in their ordinary trading voyage, but would be engaged on an extraordinary voyage as troopships, and therefore the men would he subject to certain risk not contemplated by the agreements. It was not disputed by counsel for tlis informants that tho defendants had entered into agreements for an ordinary trading voyage, and it was also admitted that the ships were to carry the Expeditionary Forces from New Zealand to England, but counsel contended that the ships were nevertheless ordinary cargo boats as they were taking the cargo usually carried by them, and, further, that tho character of the ships were not altered by the fact of their carrying troops aad horses in addition; _ nor could there be any greater risk involved to those on board by reason of tlieir being troopships. Tho Magistrate was of opinion that the whole question for determination was whether the refusal of the' defendants to obey orders was based upon rasonablo grounds. In other words, could it be said that there was a greater risk attendant upon the voyage back to England by reason of ships carrying troops and horses ill addition to tlieir ordinary cargo alone, in view of the fact that the country owning the ship was a belligerent one. In his opinion tho risk was not increased by tho fact that the ships upon which defendants were employed had been requisitioned to carry war material in addition to ordinary cargo, especially as they would be proceeding undor a very strong convoy and would therefore bo more immune from risk than if returning without such protection and with a cargo of produce of such great value as it undoubtedly would be to the onemy at the present time. Therefore the defendants were lot justified in refusing to obey the lawful commands of their officers and must he convicted. From this decision the defendants appealed, on the ground that it was erroneous in law. Mr. P. J. O'Resran appeared for the appellants, while Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for one 6ot of respondents (owners of the Limerick), and Mr. H. E. Evans for the other respondents (owners of the Orari}. After hearing legal argument, His Honour reserved his decision.

AN ADJOURNMENT. Argument lias lieen adjourned until this morning in the esse of Gurne.v v. Gnrno.v. Tho action was decided at the recent civil sessions and it now remains to settle the form of decreu.