The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-05 00:00:00

THE BRITISH PRESS.

engaged with the vessel in London on the 20th of December 1824:
that the vessel soon after sailed to the island of Dominica, and on
the 14th February Carman went on shore with the Captain's leave.
promising to return by sunset. This promise was violated, and on
the following. day the master went ashore, and charged his seaman.
before a magistrate, with desertion and insubordination. Upon this
charge he was apprehended and brought before the magistrate,
whose authority he denied in a contumacious manner. for which
contamacy he warcommitted to ganl,where lie remained for seventy-
five days. At the termination of that period he was again taken on
board the Ealing Grove, which sailed for the port of Lontlon,where
It arrived in June 1823. The Learned Civilian contended that un-
der these circumstances Cie seaman had in no way forfeited his
claim to wages. 'lt was true there was a legislative enactment
which made it desertion for examen to stay from his vessel with-
nut leave for twenty-four hems. This act was made rather for the
advantage of masters and owners, than for that of seamen. But
Camtan'e case did not come within this enactment: he did no; stay
from his vessel fur twenty-four hours. His leave was not nut until
sunset, and at one o'clock the following day he was taken before
the magistrate; therefore he could have been ab-ent from his vexed
only sixteen hours. Ilia subsequent absence when in confinement
In the common gaol could not surely he urged as an act of desertion.
As to the charge of mutiny and inenbordination, it was frivolous,
because the master had subsequently indulged the seaman by al-
lowing him to go on shore, which act of indulgence proved that
Canine's conduct during the voyage had not been seriously offen-
sive. There was no set of violent insubordination alleged against
Carman, and his Lordship had never held that any thing luta than
an art of extreme mutiny amounted to a forfeiture of wages. When
the seaman returned to the vessel lie was willing to work, but the
master d:d not require him to do so.
Dr. JENS ER said, the seaman claimed wages from the timeal
hie hire to the return of the vessel to London, a period of nearly six
months, in which time he had been employed only during the
voyage out, and had conducted himself in a most violent and Mu-
tinous manner. In answer to Ilia claim it was pleaded, that on the
12th February he went on shore in a boat with the mate, without
leave, but returned soon after. Next day he got leave to go ashore,
upon condition that he should return at a specified time. This
condition he failed to perform, and it was strange that he should
allege that he was returning to the vessel, when he was appre-
hended at the Barrack Can teen,situated at • distance of 3 miles from
his ship. It was true the seaman may have been willing to work
on thereturniog voyage, but his previous misconduct was PO great,
that the master very properly used his discretion by not employing
him. The owners did not now plead that the seaman forfeited his
wages by his insolent conduct to the master, but that under all the
circumstances, taking the whole into consideration, he had forfeited
his claim. It was said that he had never deserted the ship, as he
had only remained away from it sixteen hours ; but what were the
facts ? He was imprisoned on the 13th Februney, and on the 4th
March he was again brought up before the Magistrate, and asked
whether he would return to his duty, which he refused, and was
therefore remanded to prison. Now if his absence from the vessel
Was not to be considered a desertion front it, was not his refusal to
return to it an act of desertion ? An to the toaster's taking Car-
man on board after his imprisonment, he did so because there
was an enactment-which made it penal tiur a toaster to leave his
men on the island. He was compelled therefore to bring him back
to England, but never employed him.
Lord STO w E r.t. suggested that when the case came before him
again it should be narrowed by the omission of irrelevant details,
which only served to embarrass the Court. lie thought the ob.
jectinna stated were not sufficient to induce him to exclude from his
consideration the allegations of the master and owners. In this
case there was something very like a desertion, and if • seaman be-
haved contumacious from the beginning of a voyage, although
there may have been a condonation, yet his previous conduct may
he properly pleaded if he continue refractory. Viewing the case as
it now stood, he would admit the allegations, and reserve to himself
the fair consideration of the whole until the case came before him
in a perfect form.
CLAIM FOR SALVAGE.
A claim for salvage was made by thirty persons, viz seventeen
men belonging to the cutter Repulse, nine men belonging to the
Preventive water-guard. three pilots, and a hey. A claim was oleo
made on the part of Lieut. Porter. of the Preventive Service, which
was opposed by the owners, as well as the other claimants.
These claims came before the Court under the following einem.
stances :—ln March last, the brig Vine. coming front Gibraltar,
laden with fruit, dm got. on the Shingles (near the Isle of Wight),
and was exposed to considerable danger. A signal of distress was
made, and the 30 claimants above designated, repaired to die ves-
sel, and for three days and three nights continued to render every
assistance in their power, and to use their best exertions to preserve
the ship and cargo. At the expiration of the third day it was
thought necessary, from the nature of the cargo, which principally
consisted of heavy barrels, to procure additional assistance, and one
of his Illaiesty's Wain-packets was sent front the Dock-yard at
Plymouth. The further services of the claimant' were then din.,
pensed with, and the ship and cargo were finally saved. Lieutenant
Pcrter claimed, not for his personal services, but for permitting the
Preventive boats to repair to the assistaue of the brig. The ship
and cargo were estimated at 5,51:01, and the claim of the 30 persons
above ndticed to salvage was fully admitted, but it was urged that
2401. the sum tendered, was an adequate remuneration, but this
sum the claimants refused to accept.
The value of the services performed being the only question
issue, the allegatioas at both sides, as well as the observations of
the burned Counsel, were almoet egehurively directed to this point.
The master of the Vine alleged that he felt little apprehension for
the safety of the ship or cargo, but hie assertions were not fortified
by the facts, as it appeared that a signal of distress had been made,
that the main-mast was cut away, and that a part of the cargo was
delivered to the boats which were brought to her assistance by the
claimants.

•
"Lord S-row-Eu. said, that no doubt the 30 persons who claimed-
salvage were salvors to a large extee.r. He did not think the offer
made by the-owners was illiberal; at the same time, considering.
that the claimants were engaged for three days end nights, he
thought them fairly entitled to rather More. lie was inclined to
allow them 4001. As to the claim of Captain Porter, it was alto-
gether novel. In no instance, to his knowledge, had a person been
allowed salvage unless he actually performed some service, or
claimed it for damage done to • boat; or damage arising from the
loss of the boat's use. Captain Porter's claim was founded on his
permitting the boats to go to the assistance of the vessel. It was
certainly politic that officers on those stations should have a discre-
tionary power of permitting their boats to go to the assistance of
vessels in distress ; and Captain Porter having the responsibility of
other public duty was a sufficient apology for his not personally
attending. His claim, however, was a very novel one: it was in-
troducing something like a prise principle; a principle which
would not apply here, as the cases were very different where pro-
perty was taken from the hands of an enemy, and property was
saved belonging to a British subject. However, as the claim
was new, he would allow Captain Porter his law expenses, and
this with the 4110!. which he adjudged to the salvors, would
amount, he thought, to nessly 500 g., the sum in which the pro.
petty preserved exceeded 5,0001.
Ilis LORDSHIP, at the desire of Counsel for the salvors, after.
wards adjudged that the salvage should be proportioned as follows:
—To the men of the Repulse 1501., and the balance to be divided
in equal proportion etnonssa the other elnimants.

ADJOURNED SOUTHWARK SESSIONS,
TOWN-HALL, BOIROUGH, Nov. 4.

Before the REcoantn and Alderman J. J. SMITH.
AN INHABITANT OF ST. JOHN, SOUTHWARK, V. THE COM-
MISSIONERS POR LIOMTING, PAYING, AND WATCHING
THE EAST DIVISION OP SOUTHWARK.

In consequence of an apral which wax appointed this day to be
heard, from Mr. Samuel Barnard, an Inhabitant of Southwark,
against the llsth and I leth rates for lightitig, paving, and watch-
ing the But Division of Southwark, the Town.hall was attended
by several of the Commis toners as well as inhabitants of the Bo-
rough.
The case for the appellant was briefly stated by Hr. A DOL PH US,
who said that it was precisely similar to that brought before the
Court during the last Sessions, and which was not heard in conse-
quence of an alleged defect in the recognizance.
The recognizance was now submitted to the opinion of the Re-
corder, who decided on its being invalid.
Mr. ADO LPH vs informed the Court that his client had resolved
on making application to the Court of King's Bench.