Loss, Suspension, and Reduction of Seamen's Wages, by Capture, Detention, or Wreck.

405. Where a seaman has been imprisoned by the authorities of a foreign country for a violation of its laws, the costs and charges may be deducted from his wages; but not so when he is imprisoned at the instance of the master of the vessel. Magee v. The Moss, Gilpin's D. C. R.

233.

406. Where a seaman at a foreign port contracts an ordinary disease, without any fault of his own, and remains on board a vessel which is properly provided with a chest of medicines, the expense for the attendance and advice of a physician, if evidently necessary for the safety of his life, are to be deducted from his wages. Holmes v. Hutchinson, Gilpin's D. C. R. 448.

407. Where a seaman is disabled by an accident in the actual discharge of his duty, he is to be cured at the expense of the ship. Ibid.

408. Where a seaman contracts disease by his own vices and faults, and in defiance of the counsel and command of his superior officers, the vessel is not chargeable with the expense of Pierce v. Patton, Gilpin's D. C. R.

his cure.

438.

409. Where a seaman in a foreign port, is taken on shore when sick at his own solicitation, from a vessel properly provided with a medicine chest, and there receives medical attendance and advice, the expenses are to be deducted from his wages. Ibid.

Loss, Suspension, and Reduction of Seamen's Wages, by Capture, Detention, or Wreck. 415. A capture, unless followed by condemnation, does not dissolve the contract for mariners' wages. During the prize proceedings, it is suspended, and on a decree of restoration it revives. The Saratoga, 2 Gallis. C. C. R. 162. 416. If, pending the voyage, there be an interdiction of commerce with the port of destination, and the voyage is thereby broken up, no wages are due. But if the mariners be subsequently retained by the master to refit and pre serve the ship, they are entitled to a reasonable compensation in the nature of wages. If, after this detention, they shall be discharged in a foreign port, they are entitled to the two months' pay, provided by the act of congress of 28 February, 1803, ch. 62, and may recover it, if unpaid, in the admiralty. But the two months' wages are to be calculated, not according to the original contract, but according to the new contract of hire. Ibid.

417. If during the voyage the vessel be сарtured, and a final decree of restitution, the right to wages is not complete until after restitution. Willard v. Dorr, 3 Mason's C. C. R. 91.

418. If a neutral ship, after capture, is condemned and sold, and afterwards, on appeal, the sentence is reversed, and freight for the full voy410. The sale of a vessel by the owner, sub-age is allowed in damages, it seems the seamen sequent to the execution of the shipping articles by seamen, does not discharge him from liability for the wages of the seamen; even though the voyage was not terminated, or the wages were not demanded previous to the sale. Bronde v. Haven, Gilpin's Rep. 596.

411. Where a vessel, which arrives at a foreign port, discharges her cargo, and remains there some time after the discharge, and is lost on the homeward voyage, the seamen are entitled to their wages up to the time of the discharge, but not to half the time she afterwards remained in the foreign port. Gilpin's D. C. R. 600. [Contra. Abbot on Shipping, 447; 1 Lord Raym. 639; 1 Lord Raym. 739; 12 Modern, 408. The Cynthia, 1 Peters' Adm. Decis. 204; 1 Peters' Adm. Decis. 130; 1 Peters' Adm. Decis. 215; 2 Peters' Adm. Decis. 391. Thompson v. Faussatt, 1 Peters' C. C. R. 182; 11 Massachusetts Rep. 545. Jones v. Smith, 4 Hall's L. Journ. 276; Comyn on Contracts, 372; 13 Mass. 76; 5 Mass. 173; 2 Mason's C. C. R. 329.]

412. A mate, succeeding to the command of the ship upon the death of the master, does not thereby lose his character as mate, but may sue in the admiralty for his wages. The Brig George, 1 Sumner's C. C. R. 150.

are entitled to full wages for the voyage. At all events, they are entitled to wages up to the time of the condemnation, if they remained by the ship so long. Ibid. 161.

419. Capture of a neutral ship does not of itself dissolve the contract for mariners' wages. The utmost effect that can be attributed to it is, that it suspends the contract, which is revived or extinguished by the ultimate acquittal or condemnation. The seamen, therefore, are not bound to quit the ship immediately upon the capture, nor can the master compel them to receive a discharge. They have a right to remain by the ship until a sentence of condemnation or acquittal has passed, or all reasonable hope of recovery is gone. Emmerson v. Howland, 1 Mason's C. C. R. 45.

420. If, with the consent of the master, they leave the ship, they are not prejudiced in their rights; and their title to wages for the previous part of the voyage will depend on the fate of the vessel. Ibid.

421. The mate and two hands were sent on shore with the boat; one of the hands was detached from the boat on the business of the ship; the mate first, and then the other seaman left the boat, and it was stolen. The sailor detached 413. He is also entitled to be cured at the ex-is not responsible, but the whole loss must fall pense of the ship, in the same manner as a seaman; and therefore, if he is put on shore from sickness, for the convenience of the ship, his expenses for medicines, advice, attendance, and board, are to be borne by the ship owner.

Ibid.

414. It seems that a like rule applies to the master. Ibid.

on the mate and negligent seaman. Knap et al. v. The Eliza and Sarah, 1 Adm. Decis. 200.

422. In cases of capture or wreck, wages are due to the last port of delivery, and for half the time the vessel stayed there. The wages for the interval af er the vessel leaves her last port of delivery to the time of the wreck, depend on circumstances. The sailors must assist in sav.

90

Loss, Suspension, and Reduction of Seamen's Wages, by Capture, Detention, or Wreck.

ing the ship and goods, or so much thereof as possible, so as to entitle them, by way of encouragement, to their wages out of the property saved. The Cynthia, 1 Adm. Decis. 203.

423. If persons, not part of the regular crew, employed in lading a vessel, are guilty of embezzlement, without the knowledge, participation, or connivance of the mariners, the latter are not bound to contribute. The Kensington, 1 Adm.

Decis. 239.

424. But the seamen are answerable for embezzlement, unless they can clearly show that it was committed by persons not of the crew; and the burden of proof is thrown on the mariIbid.

ners.

425. If embezzlement of part of the goods lost is fixed on some of the crew, who must pay separately to the amount proved, yet they, or the surplus of wages, if forfeited, or in the hands of the owner, remain further answerable in a general contribution for the balance. All must contribute, including the captain and officers, according to their respective wages. Nor is any one to be excused from this general contribution, though absent from the ship, and not in a situation to be capable of assisting in the plunder. The innocence of the individual is not in question; it turns on the joint obligation of all to make retribution; it is part of the conditions on which they engage in their occupation. The Fair American, 1 Adm. Decis. 242.

426. Where a vessel was captured and sent in for adjudication, and the master offered to discharge the mariners, and find passages for them home, but they refused to quit the ship, and the ship, being finally acquitted on appeal, pursued her voyage; wages were decreed for the whole time, including the period of delay at the port to which the vessel was sent for adjudication. Wesley et al. v. Biays, 4 Hall's Am. L. Journ. 475.

captor, and the captured vessel was sent into Cumana, and afterwards liberated: held, what seamen who had escaped from the captors were entitled to wages for the voyage, deducting whatever they had earned after their separation from the vessel. The Hazard, 2 Peters' Adm. Decis. 384.

432. Where a vessel, bound to a port which was found, on her arrival near it, to be blockaded, and therefore the ship had been turned off, and proceeded to another port, though not originally contemplated in the shipping articles, yet if the cargo, or any part, was there delivered, it should be considered as a delivering port as much as if originally so intended. And if the vessel, after leaving that port, was captured or lost, the mariners are entitled to the wages due to the time of arrival at that port, and for half the time of stay there. Cranmer v. Gernon, 2 Peters' Adm. Decis. 391.

433. The contract between the owners and master of a ship is, that if the master well and faithfully performs the voyage, the owners agree to pay his monthly wages, and allow the customary privileges annexed to his office. But it is no part of the contract that a master once engaged shall be master for the voyage. MontWharton, 2 Peters' Adm. Decis. 397. gomery v. 434. The law implies sundry engagements of the captain to the mariners. Two of which are: 1st, that at the commencement of a voyage, the ship shall be furnished with all the necessary and customary requisites for navigation; or, as the term is, shall be found seaworthy: 2d, that the captain shall supply the mariners with good and sufficient provisions whilst they are in his service. The Cyrus, 2 Peters' Adm. Decis. 409.

435. Gross and unnecessary deviation from Baudin, 2 Peters' Adm. the designated voyage, will free a mariner from his contract. Moran v. Decis. 415.

436. Where cruel and unwarrantable chas427. An American ship delivered her cargo at Liverpool, and on her return to the United tisement has been inflicted, the court will disStates was captured by a French cruiser, recap-solve the contract, and decree wages to the seatured by an English frigate, and restored on payment of salvage. A mariner of the ship was taken on board the French cruiser, and was carried to France and released. Wages for the whole voyage were allowed; a portion of the salvage deducted. Hart v. The Littlejohn, 1 Adm. Decis. 115. Howland v. The Lavinia,

Ibid. 123.

428. Where a voyage is broken up by seizure for the debts of the owners, extra wages will be allowed to the sailors according to circumstances; but damages for loss of time and expenses on shore are seldom given. The Oder, 2 Peters' Adm. Decis. 261.

429. Where a voyage is broken up for the interest of the owner, an additional allowance is usually given, of from one to three months' pay. Hindman v. Shaw, 2 Peters' Adm. Decis.

264.

men to the time of their leaving the ship, and sometimes even for the whole voyage. Rice v. The Polly and Kitty, 2 Peters' Adm. Decis. 420. The St. Oloff, Id. 428.

437. If a voyage be interrupted without the fault of the crew, they shall receive wages during the time they work on board the vessel in port. The Atalanta, Bee's D. C. R. 48.

438. It is a general rule that all the crew must contribute to make good the amount embezzled. Sullivan v. Ingraham, Bee's D. But proof will be admitted to show the innocence of some. C. R. 182.

439. When the cargo and freight of a vessel are lost before the termination of the voyage, the wages of the seamen are also lost; and the original contract is therefore annulled. Adams v. The Sophia, Gilpin's D. C. R. 79.

440. Desertion during the voyage, is, by the 430. But if the merchant has found the sea-maritime law, a forfeiture of all wages antecemen their passage home, and their supplies, it has been considered a substitute for the additional wages. lbid.

431. Where mariners were taken on board the

dently due. But a desertion, to work this effect, must be not merely an absence without leave, or in disobedience of orders, but animo non revertendi, an intention to abandon the ship and

When Seamen forfeit their Wages.

When Seamen Forfeit their Wages.

duty in due time," that is, before the master has | and although it occurred after the vessel arrived hired another in his place, or otherwise fairly at her last port of delivery. Knagg v. Goldsmith, rendered it impracticable, without injury to the Gilpin's D. C. R. 212. owner, to receive him again; the master is bound to receive him. Ibid.

472. Where mariners had deserted from a 482. To justify seamen for leaving a vessel ship on shore, and in a perilous situation, and before the termination of a voyage, on account were confined at the instance of the master; the of the cruelty of the master, it must be appacourt held the voyage broken up by the misfor-rent that they could not remain without extreme tunes of the ship, and discharged the mariners from imprisonment. Sims v. Mariners, 2 Peters' Adm. Decis. 393.

484. A change of voyage from that specified 474. Forfeiture of half a seaman's wages was in the shipping articles, must be actually redecreed, in consequence of his striking the cap-solved on or known to a seaman, to authorize tain. The latter had inflicted other punishment for the offence, which prevented the court from decreeing forfeiture of the whole. Sprague v. Kain, Bee's D. C. R. 184.

Jurisdiction in Cases of Informations-Revenue Seizures-Forfeitures.

for breaches of the revenue laws, although the property seized may never have come into the possession of the officers of the court. Schooner Bolina and Cargo, 1 Gallis. C. C. R. 75.

488. The district court of the United States, as a court of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, may entertain suits for all torts, damages, and unlawful seizures at sea. Burke v. Trevitt, 1 Mason's C. C. R. 96.

489. In an admiralty seizure cause, the court cannot award a proportion of the proceeds of the property condemned to informers, unless the case be within some statute provision: but it will allow compensation for expenses incurred in securing and preserving the property. The Langdon Cheves and Caledonian, 2 Mason's C. C. R. 85.

490. Wherever property is brought into a court of admiralty adjudication, upon a seizure for forfeiture, or other cause cognizable for them, the property is, in contemplation of law, in the custody of the court, and cannot be drawn from its possession but by some person who shall establish a right to receive it. U. S. v. La Jeune Eugenie, 2 Mason's C. C. R. 409.

498. A libel or information under the 9th sect. of the slave trade act of March 2d, 1807, ch. 77, alleging the vessel to have sailed from the ports of New York and Perth Amboy, without the captain's having first made out and subscribed the duplicate manifests required by law, and without his having previously delivered the same to the collectors or surveyors of the ports of New York and Perth Amboy, is fatally defective; the act of congress directing the manifest to be delivered to the collector or surveyor of a single port. Under the same section, it is necessary that the libel should aver the vessel to be "of the burthen of forty tons or more." The Mary Ann, 8 Wheat. 380; 5 Cond. Rep. 471.

499. In general, it is sufficient for the libel to charge the offence in the very words which direct the forfeiture, but this is not universally true. If the words which describe the subject of the law are general, embracing a whole class of individuals, but must necessarily be so construed as to embrace only a subdivision of that class, the charge in the libel ought to conform to the true sense and meaning of these words, as used by the legislature. Ibid.

491. All seizures under laws of impost, navi- 500. The technical niceties of the common gation, or trade of the United States, where the law are not regarded in admiralty proceedings. seizures are made in waters navigable from the It is sufficient if the information set forth the sea, by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, are offence so clearly as to bring it within the statute civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdic-on which it is founded. It need not conclude tion; and under the judiciary act of September contra formum statuti. The Merino, 9 Wheat. 24th, 1789, ch. 20, are triable without a jury. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 623. Whelan v. U. S. 7 Cranch, 112; 2 Cond. Rep. 437. 492. Where in an instance or revenue case the government makes out a prima facie case of forfeiture, the onus probandi is thrown on the claimant; and if he fails to remove the presumptions which the law raises, condemnation will follow. The Luminary, 8 Wheat. 407; 5 Cond. Rep. 473.

493. An information against a vessel for an illegal outfit, will lie in the circuit court. The Cassius, 2 Dall. 368.

494. It is sufficient in an information for a forfeiture, that it states, in express terms, the title and date of the statute under which the forfeiture is claimed; the addition of the technical words, contra formum statuti, is altogether formal and unnecessary. The Merino et al. 9 Wheat. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 623.

495. The technical niceties of the common law as to informations, are not regarded in admiralty informations; the material inquiry in the latter cases being, whether the offence is so set forth as clearly to bring it within the statute upon which the information is founded. Ibid.

496. An information in the admiralty for a forfeiture, must contain a substantial statement of the offence; a general reference to the provisions of the statute is not sufficient. If the information be defective in that respect, the defect is not cured by evidence of the facts omitted to be averred in the information. The Schooner Hoppet, 7 Cranch, 389; 2 Cond. Rep. 542. Brig Caroline, 7 Cranch, 496; 2 Cond. Rep. 584.

497. An informal libel, or information in rem, may be amended by leave of court. The Caroline, 7 Cranch, 496; 2 Cond. Rep. 584.

501. The district court of the district where the seizure was made, and not where the offence was committed, has jurisdiction in proceedings in rem for an alleged forfeiture. Ibid.

502. If the seizure is made on the high seas, or within the territory of a foreign power, the jurisdiction is confined to the district court where the property is carried, and proceeded against. Ibid.

503. In an information under the 67th sect. of the collection act of 1799, ch. 128, against goods for differing in description from the contents of the entry, it is not essential to the libel that it should contain an allegation of an intention to defraud the revenue. 200 Chests of Tea, 9 Wheat. 430; 5 Cond. Rep. 643.

504. In cases of seizures made on land under the revenue laws, the district court proceeds as a court of common law, according to the course of the exchequer on informations in rem, and the trial of the issues of fact is to be by a jury. But in cases of seizures on waters navigable by vessels from sea, of ten or more tons burthen, it proceeds as an instance court of admiralty, and the trial is to be by the court. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 472.

505. A libel charging the seizure to have been on water, when in fact it was made on land, will not support a verdict and judgment, or sentence thereon. The two jurisdictions, and the proceedings under them, are to be kept entirely distinct. Ibid.

506. Nothing is better settled, both in England and America, than the doctrine that a noncommissioned cruiser may seize for the benefit of the government; and if his acts are adopted