A SEAMAN'S CLAIM,

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 223, 27 September 1901, Page 3

A SEAMAN'S CLAIM,

AGAINST U.S.S. COMI’ANY. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF

At the Magistrate's Court, Napier, Mr A. Turnbull, 8.M., gave judgment in the case Cleary V. Union Steamship Company, in which evidence and argument were taken at a previous sitting, llis Worship said : This is a claim hy a seaman against his employers for one month’s wages, and for money paid for medical attendance and for medicine. The plaintiff' was a fireman on the defendant Company's steamer Omapero, and shortly before the 29th of March last was injured hy a brick whilst doing work for the Company. On March 29, upon reaching Napier, he went ashore to seek medical advice, and was found to be suffering from erysipelas and unable to follow his occupation. lie so informed His immediate superior, viz., the second engineer, and on the same day produced a certificate from a medical man. The steamer went away to Wellington leaving plaintiff behind, and at Wellington the captain got the plaintiff written off the articles as discharged at that port, l’reviously to doing so and after the plaintiff had left the steamer an entry was made in the log as follows "J. Cleary, fireman, failed to he aboard ship at sailing hour, and is logged accordingly—J. W. Millman, master; J. Campbell, mate.” This entry, to my mind, was misleading ; it should have'stated that the plaintiff was left behind through illness. The fact of the illness is not disputed, nor that the plaintiff was ill to the 28th April. Now, file provisions of the Shipping and Seamen’s Act Amendment Act, 1890, show clearl y that if by reason of illness a seaman is unable to proceed on a voyage he shall be deemed to be discharged from itis ship and entitled to be paid his wages according to agreement, subject to_ the conditions in Section 2of the Act. Under Section 5 of the same Act it was the master’s duty to have left a sufficient gum of money to cover plaintiff s prospective wages' and expenses for medical attendance, etc. I wish to add that it has been attempted to he set up as a defence herein that when the plaintiff went ashore to see a doctor he was guilty of desertion. On that point I need only refer to the ease of the V estmorelanil M Win. Rob. Admiralty Reports, 211) where it was held that where seamen went ashore without leave to seek legal -advice they were not guilty of desertion. .1 give judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, Ll 4 6s. and costs L 3 lis. Leave to appeal was refused.