TROUBLE ON A STEAMER

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 253, 13 July 1918, Page 10

TROUBLE ON A STEAMER

OVER RIGGING A JIAST. An argument as to (he rigging of a 'topmast on the steamer tiiaucus on Thursday, resulted in trouble occurring between the second mato of the vessel nnd ii seaman. The facts concerning the dispute vero ventilated before Mr. ]•'. V. Frazer, S.JC, at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when William Norcutt was charged with having disobeyed" the lawful commands of the mato of the ship. John Irving, second mate, charged Norcutt with having assaulted him, and there was a cross-action by Norcutt, who alleged that he had been assaulted by Mr "if. Scott appeared for Norcutt, who pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. Norcutt appeared in Court with a blackened eye. Patrick Byrne, mute of the Glnucns, enitl that oh Thursday a topmast was bcine sent aloft. Witness (old Norcutt, who'was aloft, to "R«eve the heel rope,, but Xorcutt refused to do what he was told He came down to the deck and immediately attacked the second mate who defended himself. "Had the soeoiit mate not retaliated I his man would have killed him," added 'the witness. John Irving, the second mate, stated that when Norcutt refused to carry out the order, witness 'told him to comedown fi out aloft. Norcutt told witness to do (he job himself, and when lie came down to the deck he immediately struck at witness, who defended himself. Evidence having been given by witnesses of the combat on the deck, Norcutt went into 'the box and said that when lie came down' from alott and stepped up to the second mate, the latter enid: "I will fight you; I'm not afraid of you" He then proceeded to narrate how he had been dealt with by the second mnte. • His Worship said the statements were conflicting, but the strongest part of the evidence went to aliov thut Norcutt was to blame. He might havo misunderstood the order, but' his wilful disobedience caused the argument. "So far as the second mate is concerned," paid Mr. Frazer, "I am inclined to think that he went beyond his legal right in doing what he did. A man who is assaulted is entitled to use reasonable force to repel force, but he is not entitled to use I,'ore fo'TO than is necessary. . . . Irvin' was the person assaulted, but the etep3 he took to defend himself were not so much that I should convict him.' The information against Irving was dismissed. So far .as the sailor was concerned, His Worship said he thought Norcutt had received sufficient punishment, so he did not propose to convict him on fie chargo of assault. For disobeying till order, however, Norcutt was lined £2.