A contrast in Law

*THE WORKER*

Brisbane, February 2, 1895.

A Contrast.

At the City Police Court, Brisbane, on Friday last Thos. Welsh was summoned by Lee, skipper of the Arawatta, for disobedience of orders.

From the evidence for the prosecution it appeared that about 4o'clock on January 4 the second engineer, Mr. W.A. Cameron, told defendant to trim the bunkers. Defendant said he lived here (the vessel was alongside the wharf at Brisbane at the time), and he did not think it right that he should be asked to do it. Defendant did not obey the order, and Cameron made a report to the chief engineer, who employed a substitute. Defendant was on board when the substitute was employed but he left the ship soon afterward. Defendant came next morning and started work again at 9 o'clock. He worked eight hours a day and on the day in question he would have completed his eight hours by working from 2 o'clock till 5 o'clock. Mr. Price elicited the fact that as a rule the men knocked off work at 4 o'clock on the first day in port, and in reply to Mr. Murray it was stated that defendant would have been paid overtime had he done the work demanded of him.

For the defence, defendant stated that he had never been asked to do such work at any other port than Brisbane. He was asked to start the work referred to by Mr. Cameron at five or six minutes to 4 o'clock, and his eight hours were up at 4 o'clock. He worked till 4 o'clock, and left at 4.30 o'clock. He denied that he had refused duty on January 4, and argued there was nothing to make the work after 4 0'clock necessary for the safety of the ship. In reply to Mr. Ball, he said he told Mr. Cameron that he had finished his eight hours. Had the work demanded of him been in the engine-room he admitted that it would have been a case of necessity and he would have done it.

Defendant was ordered to be imprisoned for seven days, and to forfeit two days' pay.

The following parallel case of disobedience of orders under the Masters and Servants Act has has revealed a sense of justice, in spite of and in contradiction to the law, that is entirely absent in our colonial courts. At the Bloomsbury (London) Country Court the case of Scrotton v. Greenleigh was heard. It was an action in which the plaintiff, a cook, living in Queen's road, Packham, sued the defendant, of Russel place, W., to recover the sum of £2 16s., wages in lieu of notice. The plaintiff stated that she was engaged by Mr. Greenleigh to act as cook in the family of five children and five servants. The first day of her service she was told to go and clear away the breakfast things, and while doing so she pointed out that it was not the work of a cook. Her mistress promised to get one of the other servants to do the work, but the following morning she was again asked to do it. The witness pointed out that, having no help, she had quite enough to do to cook, whereupon the lady told her to go. She answered that she was not prepared to leave at once, and left the house to find lodgings. When she returned Mr. Greenleigh was in the house, and he said, “ I give you ten minutes to clear out of the house, and if you are not out I'll get a policeman to turn you out.” As a fact, a policeman was called, and, acting under his advice, the plaintiff left. The defence was that the plaintiff discharged herself. In giving judgement for the plaintiff £2, his Honour said that it was not sensible to expect a cook, who had to get breakfast at 9 o'clock luncheon at 1, and dinner at 8 to remove and wash up the things. He allowed her costs, as she was a domestic servant, that being the only exception from the Act, which deprived a plaintiff of his or her costs.