Star.
London, England, 1822-06-29 00:00:00

'~~►,;'

. .

LAW IND-ELtIGENC&

AMITRALTY COURT.
• THE CASTILIA.
This was a question of seamen's wages, of importance to the
coal trade. The mariners, proceeding against the owners to
recover their wages, under a contract from Shields to London
and back, alleged they were entitled to be paid for the run,
having quitted the .vessel under circumstances on which there
was some contradictory evidence. Tht vessel sailed from Shields
on the 5d et December, and arriving in the River, a severe frost
set in, by which she was prevented returning. After being dee'
tamed twelve days, the Captain desired the men would look out
for other emp (Intent, and for that puipose lent them hie boat,
saying he would pay them half their wages and discharge them.
The men being unsuccessful in obtaining other employment,
and orders being given that no provisions would be cooked on
hoard but for the Master, 'Mate. Cook, and a boy, they having
gene without their breakfast that morning, quitted the shlp-of
their own accord. They contended, that by the lustom of the
port of Loudou, they were entitled to leave the ship after being
detained five days ; and that the ship's delay to return to Shields
was not in coiisequence of the frost, but of the•voluntary act of
the 31a3ter, detaining the ship in hopes of a greater price being
given for the coals. On the other hand, it was denied that they
were without provisions, but that the orders given were, that
such men as refused to do the work on board should have no
provisions. The existence of any such[ custom as, that Mariners
were at liberty to quit the ship before the voyage was performed,
was in like manner denied by the Owners, and there being insuf-
ficient evidence to support such custom, the Court struck out from
tht present inquiry the determination of that part of the question.
Lord Srowstr., in giving judgment, observed, these men went
'ashore without leave; and they alleged in their justification, that
this was because they went without their breakfastthat morning,

being told that no provisions would be cooked for them, and they
were therefore obliged to desert the ship for want of provisions.
Now if this was true, there was no doubt it amounted to a com-
plete justification. In Merchants' ships as well as King's ships,it
was an established rule that the ship shall find provisions for the
men as long as the; remain on board. Now the question in this
case was, whether under these circumstances this was a criminal
desertion, or one of necessity? In this case, there was no doubt
the ship would be disposed to.get rid of her cargo as soon as she
could. No doubt, in same instances, it was the interest of the
Owners to wait for a frost, its order to get a better price; but that
was subject to the disadvantage of a fleet perhaps arriving, by
which means the price might fall. The ship arrived on 17th Dec.
and staid till the 20th of January ; and before site disposed of her
cargo, she was frozen up. Perhaps the practice of waiting in
order to get a better price, was one which the custom of the
trade did not altogether discountenance. The observation of the
Captain that the owners were subject to a great expense by the
delay was allowable ; and it was likewise very reasonable that he
should propose to the men their taking the chance of getting em-
ployment on lxtard some other slip. The men, thereupon, came
up to Doctors' Commons and took advice; and no doubt they
were very properly advised to adopt the present proceeding. The
preponderance of evidence, although contradictory, was in sup-
port of the fact, that the Mariners having gone without their
breakfast, and being told by the cook they were to have no fur-
ther subsistence on hoard, amounted in the opinion of the Court
to a justification.—The Court, therefore, decreed them their
wages, with expenses of suit against the owners.