The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-31 00:00:00

for service, in a voyage:to the island of Dominica. and from thence
to England. It appeared that the ship sailed from England in
December, 1824, and arrived in the West Indies in the month of
February, in the ensuing year. During the outward voyage, Car.
man was said to have been negligent of his duty, and after his
arrival in the NVest Indies, he was charged with having indulged
in habits of constant intoxication, which incapacitated him from
discharging his duty. It was further stated, that after the arrival
of the vessel at Dominica. Carman got leave to go ashore for a
short time, but that he failed to return when his leave was expired.
For this misconduct, the Master o'o%4:hi proper to take Carman
before Mr. Anderson, a Magistrate of the island ; and, on this
occasion, Carnyin having conducted himself in a most insolent
manner, and violently refused to return to his duty on board the
vessel, the Magistrate committed him to prison, where he remained
until shortly before the Ealing Grove set sail on her return, when
the seaman was again taken on board the vessel, and came hack to
England. Under these circumstances, the owners of the Ealing
Grove refused to pay Carman his wages, on the proanda of actual
desertion, and of gross misconduct, sufficient to incur a forfeiture
of wages.
Dr. LUSHINGTON appeared to support the mariner's claim, and
argued, that although occasional acts of drunkenness had been
proved, there was no evidence to support the charge of desertion ;
nor were any acts of misconduct proved against the mariner, of a
character to induce the Court to decide that the claimant had for-
feited his wages. The charge of desertion could not be sustained,
for the mariner had only been absent fifteen hours after his leave
had expired ; and the law required, that, to constitute desertion, a
mariner should remain twenty-fota hours absent without leave.
The charge of desertion was negatived, too, by' the circumstance,
that the claimant hail not removed his property from on board the
vessel when he went on shore. As to the charge of misconduct,
sufficient to incur a forfeiture of wages, it could not be supported,
because the master had taken Carman on board after his miscon-
duct, and he returned in the vessel to Englartl. Under these cir-
cumstances, the Learned Advocate contended thet a forfeiture of
wages was not incurred. and that the Court was bound to pronounce
favour of the seaman's claim.
Dr. J F.l4lin n.on behalf of the owners, argued that the charge of
desertion was supported by the evidence. The circumstance of the
master's taking Carman on board again, lie thought, made no
part of the case ; for by the local regulations of Dominica, sanc-
tioned by his Majesty, the master was compelled to enter into a
bond not'to leave any of his men on the island. Had he neglected
to take Carman on board, therefore, he would have forfeited his
bond, which was for 1,0001. The necessity which the master was
tinder to take the seaman on board, however, was no justification
for the seaman's conduct, which was on all occasions, on the out-
ward voyage as well as during the stay of the vessel at Dominica,
marked by the most intolerable negligence, disobedience, and
Potence. When taken before the Magistrate, lie was asked whether
he would return on board his vessel, and his reply was, " I be
if do." Ey this act, which was in evidence, the Learned Doc-
tor submitted that the seaman had forfeited his wages, and that the
Court must dismiss his claim.

Lord STOWELL said, the circumstance to which Dr. Jenner
had just alluded, the seaman's refusal to return to his ship, seemed
tha most important point in the case.
Dr. !Aram xn•ro ia reply, insisted that the evidence in sup-
port of the allegation, that the seaman refused to return to his ship,
when enjoined by the Magistrate, was not entitled to credit. The
only evidence in support of that allegation was a document. pur-
porting to he a certificate of the Magistrate, and that document was
forcibly contradicted by the presumptions which arose out of the
CAM The seaman was in custody when he was stated to have
so replied to the Magistrate, and he was aware that be might
be compelled to return to his ship, whether he wished or not.
He had already felt the full force of the law in Dominica, hav-
ing been confined for a considerable period in prison, by order of
the Magistrate, before he made the alleged declaration.
Lord Sr ow En 1. said, he would look over such of the papers as
threw any light on the point to which he had called the attention
or the Advocates, and would pronounce judgment on the next
Court-day.