1204 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [pArTV 
in that case the Act came into conflict with s. 166 of the 
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which provides that when a 
seaman is engaged for a voyage or engagement which is to 
terminate in the United Kingdom, he shall not be entitled 
bo sue in any Court abroad for his wages except on certain 
conditions! which had not been fulfilled in the cases in 
question. It was true that the case actually before the 
Court was not one of a voyage which was to terminate in 
the United Kingdom. But the Chief Justice held that as 
the Victorian Parliament had adopted similar provisions to 
8. 166 of the Act of the Imperial Parliament by Act No. 1557, 
the same respect should be paid to the Victorian Act as was 
paid to the Imperial Act, and he therefore held that the 
seamen could not claim for their wages, but only for 
the extra payment required under the legislation of New 
Zealand to make their wages up to the standard prevailing 
in the coasting trade.2 
He also held that power to endorse the articles had been 
properly vested in the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, 
and that the Collector of Customs could properly refuse a 
clearance of a vessel if the conditions as to payment had not 
been complied with. 
Williams J. agreed with the Chief Justice ; it is not quite 
clear how far he held that s. 75 in purporting to give a seaman 
the right to sue for the wages specified in the articles was 
repugnant to s. 166 of the Imperial Act and to that extent 
void. Chapman J. agreed in substance with the Chief 
Justice and Williams J., but not on the grounds given by 
them for their decisions. He reconciléd s. 166 of the Imperial 
Act with s. 75 of the New Zealand Act on the ground that 
the two sections dealt with totally different matters, and 
that therefore there was no repugnancy. The New Zealand 
! i.e. the Court did not hold that the power given by 8. 736 of the 
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, extends to repealing a provision of the 
{mperial Act even as regards coasting vessels. But the judgement in 
offect gives the right to alter materially, and it is not easy to see why 
they did not allow repeal. 
' The Court overlooked the fact that s. 264 of the Act of 1894 gives 
the Victorian enactment Imperial validity.