MAGISTRATES' COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIII, Issue 163, 8 July 1878, Page 2

MAGISTRATES' COURT.

[Before It. Pollock and J. R. Dodson Fsos J.J.P.] ' L "' Thomas Calhane and three other seamen were charged on Saturday last by Captain Pottinger of the Kentish Tar with disobedience of lawful commands. Mr Acton Adams opened the complainant's case, speaking for upwards of half an hour and apologising for explaining the matter at such length on the ground that it was a precisely similar information to the one dismissed with coats by the Bench two days before He attributed his client's failure on that occasion to his not baring had tha: assistance °* counsel, and he hoped to induce the Bench

to take a different view of the case. H^ aaid that: since the vissel came into harbofclfcisCs* Monday the defendants, '; who were alf' the ; Aiß/s on board," had- distinctly refused: to ; asslat in unloading her] 'that after a similar information to th& present one had Kberdis-. missed on Thursday tho Customs held ah enquiry, and reported that on shipping one more A.B. the vessel would be fully manned, and the master promised to ship two before' going to sea. _ lie read the ship's articles, and wis redding the official lag containing a record of the various acts of disobedience complained of, whed Sir Bunny objected to the reception of the log us evidence on the ground that it had not been read over to the defendants at the time, nor entered up until too late. Ho urged his \ objections at great length, quoting certain sections of the Merchant Shipping Act in support. Air Acton Adams; to dispose of this objection; called Captain Pottinger: whb s^ed that the entries were made in the ship's log; at the time and on Thursday, the entries irom aionuaj wer 9 OOp^d into the official ' log, and that, as to Thursday and Friday, which were the days referred to in the present case, the entries were made in the official log. at the time. ' - t The Bench then overruled thfe objection and admitted the ldg as evidence: -■ The master^ first mate, and second mate were then called ana proved that bri Thflrl- . day and i'riday the defendants had 're-v peatedly refused to work, alleging that the vessel was insufficiently manned. Mr Bunny in crp9s-exn.mittin^th^ witness sought to* show 'thut thfe-Visiell-wai. short--handed on the voyage. Mr Acton Adams. objected to the question a"s irrelevant, ttb ' said' Uyd tfxeef ting one apprentice ltfst. overboard the vessel bad the number authorised by the home authorities,and that, whatever- weigljt .tile objection might have were the vessel ' about to go t.o sea, it had none w hen the* men wero merely asked to unload her. " • "\ The Eenuh said the quest ion must be confined to the informations as to the alleged refusal to work ■on -Friday when the vessel was against the wharf. Mr Bunny then for the defence contended that no informfttjpjj poii{<M)a. laid until thecomplaint h:ul been Vn'fcere&iuaheA-log.;and copies furnished to the sailors, and repeatedly urged that thi^ wu,d. good dcfiitfcOf "" .• Mr Acton .Ada'Uis.'witlioiit lirfeldflgtng the case further, would merely point out to the Bench that the -lav?;- required that the comphriritrshould t)e' entered before the end of vogage, or if arising in port, before leaving the port. Mr Bunny's statement of $he law would, by perusal of the Merchant Shipping Act, be seen to be incorrect. The Bench retired, and, on returning, sentenced the four defendants to seven days' imprisonment, and to forfeit two days,' pay each, aud upheld the 'informations with £4 6s costs. The sailors on being: removed said they would not i!u ii:io!her stroke if they got seven years for refusing.