CHAP.11] THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA 869 
carry cargo from New York to Australian ports, which under 
the charter were to be Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, and 
Brisbane. No other trading was contemplated by the 
charter, but as a mere matter of courtesy a small package 
{7 1b. in weight) which had been part of the cargo of another 
ship, and had been inadvertently left behind at Adelaide, 
was carried by the captain to Brisbane. No charge was 
made, no bill of lading or shipping note was signed, and the 
package was not entered in the ship’s manifest. The respon- 
dent shipped at Sydney as a seaman for the voyage to 
Brisbane and back, and was injured by an accident before 
the ship reached Brisbane, where he was discharged. It 
was sought by the respondent to have the ship detained 
under the power conferred by s. 13 of the Act, which provides 
that if it is alleged that the owner of a ship actually within 
the territorial waters of Australia is liable as such to pay 
compensation under the Act, a Justice of the High Court or 
a Judge of the Supreme Court may issue an order for deten- 
tion of the ship until security has been given for payment 
of compensation. By s. 4 of the Act it was made to apply 
to the employment of seamen engaged in the coasting trade, 
and a ship was to be deemed to be engaged in the coasting 
trade © if she takes on board passengers or cargo at any port 
in a state . . . to be carried to and landed and delivered at 
any port in the same state . . . or another state ’. 
Mr. Justice Street made an order for the detention of the 
vessel, and Mr. Justice Gordon refused to discharge the 
order, and from this order an appeal was brought on two 
grounds : (1) that upon the undisputed facts the Act did not 
apply to the ship in question, and (2) that the Act was not 
within the powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. 
The Court held that the first ground for appeal was clearly 
justifiable. It was laid down that as a general rule a ship 
could not become engaged in the coasting trade without the 
knowledge and volition of the owner or of some person for 
whose acts he was responsible. There was nothing to suggest 
that the chief officer or the master who offered no objection 
had any authority on behalf of the owners to engage the ship