CONTRABAND OF WAR,
At Thames. CHARLES BOTHWELL, ADAM LAUDER, PAYER SHEHAN, and JEREMIAN SHEEN, able seamen, were summoned before Mr. Mead for combining to disobey the lawful commands of Captain G. W. H. Lauder, master of the steamship Agincourt. Mr. Dawson Miller prosecuted; and Mr. A. Nelson defended.
Mr. Miller said the proceedings were taken under section 223 of the Merchant Shipping Act. On April 22 the defendants signed to sail on the Agincourt for a period not exceeding two years, and to keep within the limits of 75° north. The vessel left Barry with a cargo of Welsh coal on April 8, the expected destination being Hong-kong. On June 27 they arrived at Singapore but the owners of the vessel, Messrs. Lloyd and Co., in the meantime having seen certain notices in the newspapers that mines were floating about in the neighbourhood of Hong-kong, decided on sending the vessel to Nagasaki, direct.
The men refused to go in the ship to Nagasaki, and their alleged reason was that the vessel carried contraband of war, and consequently they were not bound under the articles to proceed on the voyage. Some time after the Agincourt was wrecked. The log-book showed that the defendants had combined to disobey lawful commands and impede the navigation of the vessel. Nagasaki was clearly within the limits in which the vessel was to trade. There was nothing illegal in carrying contraband of war. He submitted that under the contract the men were bound to go on.
Mr. Nelson—My clients signed on at peace risk and peace pay, and they did not expect to carry contraband of war. "Welsh coal," by the Tsar's proclamation, had been declared contraband of war, and for carrying a similar cargo the Knight Commander and other vessels had been sunk. Mr. J. Lloyd, of the firm of Lloyd and Co., Leadenhall-house, said that his brokers told him his position with regard to under-writers was a doubtful one, and against that he lodged a complaint with the charterer. He afterwards declined to run the blockade to Vladivostok. He did what was safest in the interest of the £45,000 he had at stake. He got 15s. per ton.
Mr. Mead—You might have declined to go to any belligerent port? The witness said he could not, and was making a safer voyage in going to Nagasaki, as that was the last port that would be attacked by the Vladivostok squadron.
Mr. Mead—But you could have repudiated the agreement altogether if you were justified in varying the voyage from Hong-kong to Nagasaki? By Mr. Nelson. Floating mines were let loose in May, and suspicions were aroused that they might get down to Singapore. The Japanese were paying more than £1 also for steam coal, and his vessel was insured against war risks. He gave no instructions that the men were to be prosecuted at Singapore.
Mr. Nelson said that there was no case for him to answer. Nagasaki was a belligerent port. Welsh coal was contraband of war, and consequently the men were not obliged to go on with their agreement. When a vessel carried contraband of war and was subject to capture the master was not bound to compel the men to go on.
Mr. Mead thought that the owners were bound by the clause in the agreement, and when the seamen were informed it was not intended to go to Hong-kong that agreement came to an end. The men were not bound to go anywhere else without a fresh agreement. The owners had no just cause not to go to Hong-kong, and the danger of mines was too remote. He was justified in that opinion by the fact that the officers and men did not refuse to go to Hong-kong. The men had good reason to refuse to go to Nagasaki, and the summonses would be dismissed. He allowed 25s. on each summons.
Page 6HH G