V.

1807. nished. Molloy (2. 3. 2.) says a disobedient mariner Humphreys may be discharged at the first port, and that he shall Brig America. forfeit half his wages, and all his goods within the ship. By the rules of the navy of the United States, mutiny is punishable by death, or such other punishment as a court martial shall direct. By the marine law the master may punish contumacious behaviour corporally, or by putting in irons, if necessary.

In the present case, the behaviour of the actor was very improper, but the captain chose to inflict no other punishment than removal from his station as mate; after which he does not appear to have behaved improperly, or to have interfered in the management of the vessel. He was, however, the only navigator on board, except the captain; and would have been necessary to the safety of the vessel, if any accident had befallen the captain.

No ill consequence arose from his improper behaviour; and as he was dismissed, instead of suffering corporal punishment, which might justly have been inflicted. I do not think the whole of his wages ought to be retained. That he did not continue to act as mate throughout the voyage was the act of another; not voluntary on his part. On the whole, I think he must receive compensation for the time he actually did duty, that is, for about half the voyage. I decree that he be paid one half the sum mentioned in his contract; and that each party pay his own costs.

Roberts v. Dallas.

1807.

March 20.

actor. But,

taken him on

and impri

soning him,

T appeared in this case that the actor Roberts ship- The voyage being ended, ped on board the Norfolk on a voyage from Charles- the captain ton to the coast of Africa; but the articles go no further. might have discharged The court, therefore, in a late suit for wages, decreed the offending that the voyage had ended on the 21st October, when seaman, the the vessel arrived on the coast. At this period, in con- having again sequence of some highly improper behaviour of Ro- board, was not justified berts, the captain was compelled to apply to the only in assaulting tribunal that existed there, for assistance, which was granted. From that time, Roberts did no further duty without any on board, and his wages were discontinued. This the court sanctioned, because the articles were at an end, the actor refused to work, and went so far as to resist the captain and seize his person. Such conduct amounted to a forfeiture of every claim as regarded the vessel, even for a passage back; he might have been turned ashore, and would have been without redress. As this was not done, it will be necessary to state circumstances as they took place.

Upon the captain's application for assistance, a corporal and four men were sent to him. Roberts refused to give himself up, and went down the scuttle. The captain ordered the soldiers to fire on him; but they, very properly, declined. He next desired them to knock him down; but this, too, they refused to do; on which he himself advanced against Roberts, and struck him with a drawn sword on the left breast. Roberts exclaimed: "You have done for me." The captain then dragged him out, and carried him to the cabin, where he dressed his wound and gave him a dram; after which he sent him ashore under the guard of the soldiers. Roberts was subsequently tried by a court martial, and

sentenced

new crime.

1807.

V.

sentenced to receive a hundred lashes for mutiny on Roberts board this vessel; but the punishment was withheld at Dallas. the captain's request, who brought him again on board the vessel, put him in irons, and kept him for some time on prisoner's allowance: on the arrival of the vessel in this port, he was suffered to come on shore.

The suit is brought for an assault and false imprisonment. The facts are admitted; but the captain pleads that he was knocked down by Roberts, that his crew were mutinous, and that the wound he inflicted upon the actor was accidental, and without intention. It was, at any rate, unjustifiable at the time it was given, for he was then assisted by a strong guard, and Roberts was endeavouring to get out of his way. This rash step would have had a very different complexion, if it had been taken at the moment the captain was knocked down.

The wound, however, though it might have been fatal, seems to have been attended with no great danger.

The subsequent confinement of this man in irons was also unjustifiable; the contract was at an end, and the man's behaviour so improper as to discharge the captain from any sort of obligation to bring him back. If, therefore, he voluntarily received him on board, he had no right or authority to confine him, unless fresh signs of mutiny or misbehaviour had appeared; but this is not pretended. The assault and imprisonment are, of course, fully proved, and damages must be awarded.

I am of opinion, however, that this misconduct of the captain is considerably mitigated by the former conduct of Roberts, and by the remission of a hundred lashes awarded by the court martial, which was obtained by the captain's intreaty. I decree, therefore, that the latter pay to the actor the sum of fifty dollars, with the costs of suit.

Amos

THIS

Amos Ryan v. Ship Cato.

1807.

July.

... had suffered a claim for

preferred on or and decided Cato, on, before he ship, plication for

a proportion That thereof. Un

der all the

ordered him

HIS case comes before me upon petition for com- Petitioner pensation out of the ship Cato and cargo. The petitioner states "that he is master and owner salvage to be "of a fishing smack. That near the gulf stream, "about the last, he fell in with the ship "loaded with cotton, &c. That on boarding said "she was found without any person on board. "he thereupon took her in tow for two days and two circumstannights, when the weather becoming boisterous, he ces the court "anchored her in eight fathoms water, nearly in sight a compensa"of the Charleston lighthouse. That having nobody "on board his smack but one negro, he could not tion of pro"leave any person in possession of the ship. "in attempting to let go the ship's anchor, he "exertions by which, for some time, he thought his ing in the "life endangered, as the blood gushed from his mouth hands. "in consequence of a violent strain. That these cir"cumstances compelled him to leave the ship at an

tion out of

ceeds, re

That served for

the owners,

made but remain

chor, and to come up to Charleston, where, as soon "as he arrived, he made report of what had been done. "That he then hired a vessel and several hands, and

proceeded in search of the ship, which, in the heavy "gale of that night, had parted from her cable. That, pursuing a direct course, he afterwards found her "in possession of Mr. Mackay, and others, who "would not suffer him to meddle at all with ship or

cargo. That he complained of this conduct, conceiving himself fully entitled to a proportion of salvage, "for what he had done. That he was at length per"mitted by said persons to take with him two bales "of wet cotton, which he afterwards sold at auction

marshal's

1807.

V.

Ship Cato.

re

"a trifling sum, by no means adequate to his labour Amos Ryan" and sufferings, and to the expenses he incurred in endeavouring to preserve the vessel. That without "his services as above stated, in towing and anchoring the ship, she must have foundered; or, at any i rate, fallen into other hands than those of the per"sons to whom this court had decreed salvage. That "the petitioner was astonished when he heard of such "decree, having never been apprized thereof by the publication of any monition, or advertisement of

any sale by the marshal; though the salvors well "knew the petitioner's claim. That from his igno"rance of the proceedings, and the haste with which

they were transacted, he never had any opportunity "of preferring his suit to this court for what he con"ceives himself justly and equitably entitled to. He "prays, therefore, that he may be allowed to prove the "several matters set forth above, and that the court "will give him relief," &c.

This is a case differing from any other that has come before me, inasmuch as the claim for salvage had been previously satisfied to the amount of one half of the property saved; this being a vessel derelict. If the petition should be dismissed, the petitioner would have no cause of complaint, since he is alone to be blamed for ignorance of the former proceedings. He should have applied in time, and originated the steps necessary to procure him compensation.

It is true that no monition issued; but this was omitted, because the respective agents of the owners and underwriters were before the court, and suggested that a monition was not necessary. The sale of the articles on Edisto Island, instead of their being brought for that purpose to Charleston, was likewise with their consent. The court knew nothing of any other in

terest.

The