AN UNPAID FARE

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 139, 7 March 1919, Page 7

AN UNPAID FARE

IS IT RECOVERABLE?

CLAIM OF A STOWAWAY

An interesting point as to whether a shipping company is entitled to. charge the amount ot a passenger inre when the person by whom ,it was payable, has served a term of imprisonment in default of payment, was argued before Mr. "\V. G. Riddell, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court, yesterday, when Michael O'Connor, labourer, of "Wellington, sued the Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd., for tho sum of Jed. Plaintiff sot out that this amount

was taken from him-on August 22 last by the dofendant corapany,- who refused t ' to return it when application was made for it. ' . Tho facts of tho case were *that in . 'August, 1918, plaintiff was one of six men -who stowed away on .the Manuka, bound from Wellington to Sydney, bttt ho was discovered before the vessel reachqd tho New South Wales port, and was brought back -to Wellington, When discovered, plaintiff .had in his possession a mini of. .£2B 14s. Id., which was handed to the purser of tho AEoernki, in which . ship- the' pliiintiil returned to. Wellington. On August 28, 1918, plaintiff was chnrjed.-intJi 'leaving New Zealand witll- . out a permit, and for this offence he was ■ sentenced to three months' imprisonment. Plaintiff was also summarily charged with baring stowed away on (he JEanukn, and on that, charge be was convicted and or- •■ dered to-pay .£3, tho amount,of.the faro evaded, in default one- month's imprison- , nient, cumulative, on the term of three- •' months already 'mentioned. Plaintiff vns imprisoned, for the month, and on his • ."behalf it-was. submitted.that, the defendant company was not now entitled to charge for his fare, JE9; . Tho queslion. for determination was whether the com- !"'" pahy was entitled to" charge plaintiff tho. sum of i£9. ■ • ' Mr. 11. P. O'Lenry. counsel for plain- - ' tiff,' contended that flic proceedings .under. . ivhiclr plaintiff-had been punished were instituted on \be.half of tho'- , defendant company, therefore, lie was;., entitled to ' succeed , in'thb"present action.,. The intention of Section .US of tho Shipping ; . and Seamen Act was to, make anyone . Becreting himself, on board a ship-liable " -to a penalty only/'niid.that'ended tho . matter. No claim' could afterwards .bo ,: made for' , the fare payable. In addition, ■ .Mr. O'Lcary subniittetl that..the case was oiie whiciij-in equ.ity and good conscience,, should hot go agqinst the plaintiff. 'After serving the 'first term

had been willing" to pay tho amonnf of the fare in .order- that, ho' might be relioved from the .further term of a month, l>ut"ns tho money could not be obtained ho had to serve tho month. .-The gaol authorities coiilil not ilo -anything, and the police did not -have the money, which was held by the. defendant company. "I don't, knpvr, at what stage : of the journey O'Connor .whs, , appre- , bended , ," said .Mr. O'L.oar.v. smiling, "but .. .1 <lo'n't suppose, he got. £i Wi- ..w.orth ofaccommodation "on his , way to Sydney.He was amongst the coals. " That may '■ entitle him to ii reduction. if judgment goes against ,us:" • ; ' For the defendant .company, Mr. P. Levi submitted that the original, proceeding's were not laid on behalf of the Union Company. Tho.'police simply took .-" action in tho ordinary way. ..The''liability of ,£s, which the defendant company ' . claimed to <lcduct ft'pm. the .money of ' whicli'it took-possession, was in.the na-' ture of a. contract. It was the ordinary passage money, .which OX'onnor. by going on board tho Manuka, really" contracted to pay. His own action made him liable for the amount of the debt, ■ and it had nothing,to. do-"with a. criminal prosecution foe secreting .himself on ' board'the .'ship and going, to-sea without the consent of the owner'or master. Ho - ' had tho money, buc'lie did not.pay the fare. . -'..:-. His AVorship :■ It is slated that he hvas ready to pay. . .. ■' ';■ Mr. Levi: , That is,not our fault. The ' actual fact was that the police would not take the money. ... His Worship: Does not-.the action ire- ; - ■ solve itself into a claim for-dpniagw?" , Mt., Levi. "contended that it did not. His Worship: I am assuming "that he was ready to pay the faro at the beginning of the month, but through matters over .which he had no control he served tho month. He may feel that he •■ lias ibeen damaged to that'extent. ■ .Mr. Levi: I am convinced.that it was father hard on the man, but if ■ the police had... gone .the. proper way about it tho thing would have been fixed and he would not have served the month. '■' "His Worship: Well, is not that a claim'for'damage?" It might not be the company which is liable to paf the dam-

Mr. Levi: Oil, ye?, , ho may have an action against fiomeibodyl but" I do.not fancy ho.would commence it! I don't know t,-lio lie would sue. (Laughter.) Counsel submitted further that 'the Court had no poiver to order the amount of tho fare to lie paid in the company. It had power to fine O'Connor for his breach of the Shipping , nnd Seamen Act, but it had no ■ authority to'order tho ■passage money to he paid to tho company. ■ : ... ; : •Mr. ,o'Leary suggested -.tlict as plaintiff-, had been brought back : from Sydney he was only liable for tho fitroone way. His-Worship -(smiling)' , : I , don't thinl; you need .load (ho matter with any further difficulties. -. ' ■ Decision was reserved! • ■ •■