Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE MISSING DREDCER.

COMPENSATION FOR CREW’S

DEPENDENTS

PROBABLY AN UNFORTUNATE POSITION.

[PER PKESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, June 21. In all probability the dependents of the crew of the missing dredge Manchester will ffnd themselves in a peculiarly unfortunate position, for they may not be able to claim any compensation at all in respect of the less of their breadwinnersThe secretary ef the Federated Seamen’s Union (Mr W. T. Young) told a Times reporter that the matter had been taker.- up by his union, and it had been decided to submit the facts to the union’s solicitor for his opinion, and the papers were sent forward yesterday. Correspondence which had passed between the Lyttelton Harbor Board and the union showed that the dredge .became the property of the Sydney Harbor Trust ou March Ist; that was about a month before the crew’s articles of agreement were signed. The Trust sent a representative across to New Zealand to take possession of the dredge, and to make all arrangements fftr the voyage to Sydney. This was where the question of compensation came in. The crew with one or two exceptions were residents of New Zealand, and meet of them had families living here. As at the time the articles .were taken out the dredge was the property of a New South Wales owner, it was to be presumed that she was ■ within the scope -of the New South W ales law as to compensation but the point was that the New South Wales law could not be invoked by dependents of the crew, because they were not domiciled in that State at the time the dredge was presumably lest. On the other hand, unless it was found that the fact of the articles of agreement having been entered into at Lyttelton had some bearing on the point, the compensation law of New Zealand also did not apply, because the crew were employed by an owner domiciled in another State. There was unfortunately no reciprocity in regard to compensation between New Zealand and New South Wales, though the Dominion hod a reciprocal arrangement with Queensland, Western Australia and Great Britain.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GIST19120622.2.8

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3556, 22 June 1912, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
355

THE MISSING DREDCER. Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3556, 22 June 1912, Page 2

THE MISSING DREDCER. Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3556, 22 June 1912, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert