Hide Articles List

16 articles on this Page

Advertising

1j-.--.THE ADOPTED CAT AND…

REVIVAL MISSIONS AT BARRY…

BARRY MEN'S MEETINGS.

VISIT OF THE WHITE STAR LINER…

(Mghmi ioctrg.

LIST OF NEW INVENTIONS.

A REMARKABLE LETTER.

BARRY HOSPITAL COMMITTEE.

POLICE INSPECTION AT BARRY…

BARRY GRAVING DOCKS AND ENGINEERING…

,'" jBARRY SEAMAN'S CLAIM.

News
Cite
Share

BARRY SEAMAN'S CLAIM. DECISION BY JUDGE OWEN. WHAT IS THE LEGAL PORT OF DISCHARGE ? At the March sitting of Barry County Court, his Honour Judge Owen reserved decision in the case F. Sedrick, a Swedish seaman, of Barry Docks, against the North Atlantic Shipping Company, Bristol. At the last sitting of the Court on Tuesday week last, his Honour now stated that it was an action in which Sedrick claimed £1 5s 10d, amount of expenses from Hull to Barry, from the defendants, who were the owners of the steamship Madawaska. The amount of the claim was not in dispute, but the action was brought as a test case to have determined the legality of certain clauses in the appeal, Straits of Dover, 1899, King's Bench, which decided whether a seaman, discharged at a foreign port, and the master neglects to supply him with a passage home, is entitled to be provided with a passage to a port in the United Kingdom from which he shipped, or a port agreed to by him On the 9th of January, 1904, the plaintiff signed on board the Madawaska at Barry for a voyage, which ended at Bremerhaven, in the North Sea. He was paid off on the 20th of June, 1904, and was given £ 1 3s 6d, the sum being sufficient to defray plaintiff's expenses and passage home. The nearest port in the United Kingdom was Mull, and plaintiff proceeded there. The claim now was for expenses from Hull to Barry. The Judge said he had not seen the ship's articles. It was agreed that when a seaman was discharged on the Continent the master must furnish him with means to reach the nearest port in the United Kingdom. Section 115 of the Act provided, in the case of a foreign-going vessel registered in the United Kingdom, agree- ments should be signed by the crew in the presence of the Superintendent of the Board of Trade, who shall see that such agreements are thoroughly understood and duly attested, and the Superinten- dent was required to give the master of the vessel a certificate of due execution of the requirements of the Act. In this case all those formalities were complied with. The only ground in support of the plaintiff's claim was that, although a seaman might agree to be sent back to a certain port when the voyage ended, he could not do so at the time of signing the articles, as the section only provided for the arrangement being made at the time of discharge. His Honour said although Section 186 of the Act expressly allowed such agreement being made at the time of the seaman's discharge, he did not find anything to provide the agreement being made at the time the articles were signed. In the absence of such provision, he thought the clause was legal, and must be enforced. In the case, Edwards against Steel, Young and Company, 1897, the facts upon this point were much the same. It was held by the Court of Appeal that where a master deposited a sum which was con- sidered enough by the consular officer, he had complied with Section 186 of the Act, and thus shipowners were not liable. The Master of the Rolls, in giving judgment, said Clause D made the consular officer the arbitrator, and if the master of the vessel deposited that sum, no claim could be made. His Honour believed that in the present case the master had complied with Clause 186. Then, again, when the man was paid off, he signed in person with respect to all claims and wages or otherwise in respect to the voyage, and the Act provided that this shall operate as a mutual dis- charge and settlement of all things connected with the voyage. He thought that was an answer to plaintiff's claim, and gave judgment for the defendants, with costs. — Mr J. A. Hughes, solici- tor, Barry (who appeared for the plaintiff on instructions from the .National Sailors and Fire- men's Union) Will you allow the plaintiff to appeal, your Honour ?—The Judge On what grounds ?-Mr Hughes Well, it is rather difficult for me to explain.—The Judge If I give leave without grounds I shall get my knuckles rapped. What answer is there ? You will not have the validity of the clause decided ?—Mr Hughes My clients wish to appeal, your Honour. — The Judge asked Mr A. Parsons, B.A.L., who was instructed by Messrs Vaughan and Roch, solicitors, Cardiff, for the defendants, what he had to say as to leave being given ?—Mr Parsons I quite follow how conclusive the points seem. My friend may get an expression of opinion on one of them. I do not object, your Honour.—The Judge Then I give judgment as in the case the other day (mean- ing apparently the case against the Barry Educational Authority), and I think it will have the same result, (Laughter.) Leave to appeal was given, costs being granted under Scale C.

Advertising

7 ECZEMA AFTER INFLUENZA.

BARRY PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE.

[No title]