DISTRICT COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5693, 28 June 1879, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Friday, Jonh 27,

(Before his Honor Judge Mapsford and a jury of four.) LIST V, HOLMWOOD.

An action to : recover £lB2 135., brought by the chief officer of the stranded ship Hyderabad against her master. Mr. OUivier appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Stafford for the defendant, who paid £96 Bs. 7d. into Court. Mr. Stafford, at the outset, contended that his Honor had no jurisdiction, as only Courts having Admiralty jurisdiction could deal with cases in which seamen were concerned, where the amount was over £SO. He maintained that the Supreme Court was the proper Court to try the case.

His Honor thought.that the fact of £96 odd being paid into Court practically disposed of the question as to jurisdiction. He also ruled that as the claim was not for services rendered while at sea that the Court had jurisdiction. -

Mr. Ollivier, in opening his case, stated that should judgment be given in favor of his client it would not be the master who would have to pay, but the owners of the vessel at Home. The plaintiff had been engaged by the plaintiff to superintend the working of the ship while she was ashore.

J. I-iist, on being sworn, said ho had a certificate as first mate, but shipped in London as second mate on the 12th November, 1877, at a wage of £5 10s. a month. On arrival at Adelaide, the chief officer left, and witness was appointed in his place at a wage of £8 10a. This took place on the 11th March. The vessel was subsequently wrecked near Otaki. All hands left the ship for 48 hours. Witness, the second mate, carpenter, and boatswain stayed by the ship. The captain and the remainder of the crew went away some twentyfive miles. The next day witness, the boatswain, and three apprentices went on board the ship again. The men then returned to the beach, but refused to go on board. They were fed by provisions from the ship, supplied to them by witness by orders from the master. The men who remained on the beach were paid off on the 4th July. The master wrote to witness, saying that he would send some fresh hands down to pump out the ship. On the 3rd July Captain Holmwood brought down seven men from Foxton, and gave witness orders to have all the ship’s sails sent down, and the wreckage cleared away. The work was dangerous, and the pumping was very hard work, as it had to be done by hand. The work was being carried on under witness’s orders, and during the time they were engaged at it all hands on board were receiving 10s. a day until further notice. Witness subsequently asked Captain Holmwood for overtime, as he bad all the responsibility, and was receiving the same pay as the others. Captain Holmwood said he could not promise any more money. Captain Holmwood offered witness £96 Bs. 7d., but he refused it.

By Mr. Stafford : Never got a discharge from Captain Holmwood. Refused to do so. On one or two occasions there were slight probabilities of the ship being launched. The last occasion was (owarda the end of January last.

Captain Holmwood gave his evidence to the effect that the plaintiff was to have received a sum of money from one Hess, the contractor for launching the vessel. Had the vessel been successfully launched, ha (the plaintiff) would never have brought tho present action. Mr. Stafford addressed the jury at some length, contending that there was no contract between the parties, and consequently defendant was not indebted.

The jury, after a short deliberation, gave judgment for tho plaintiff for £159 4s. 3d., and costs.