The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-03-27 00:00:00

ADAHUALTY COU4 T.

The Learned Judge (Sir John Nicholl) sat on the default clay
after the last term. and stated that he had done so in order to
( ispose of a ease of some importance, all parties amcuring.
I
'he case was that of the Lady Durham:
The. question before the. court was of some interest• to the
owners of ships and to mariners. It was a suit brought by
William Jones for the stibtraCtion of wages. The vessel was-
ereighted in. September, ISA with a cargo and despatched from
Liverpool on a barter and tradiug voyage to the coast of Africa
aim" hack. She proceeded to Africa, and bartere.d .away her'
cargo for the produce of that country. The vessel on her voy- '
age home. tanched at the Island of Ascension on the %id of Sep-
tember, MIL and on the following, day she caught fire, and the
ship and cargo perished. The vessel and cargo were insured,'
huttheowneris refused to pay the wages of the seamen, on the
ground that, as no freight was earned, no legal claim existed .
against them. .. . .
' The Kings Advocate appeared an behalf of the owners, and
• contended that it was the pulley of the law-that, where no freight
had been earned the seamen could not claim wages. Had a
plank been Saved in this instance, the seaman would have been
entitled to a propertional amoant of his wages'. It could not
either be safely contended that, because the skip and cargo were
insured; the seamen were intitled to wages: It was the rule of
low to prevent seamen insuring their own wages, as such a
Course might indueuthem top relax their exertions to insure the
ship and cargo, if she. shOuld be in. distress. If it decided
that the in.surance.of the vessel and cargo by the owners was to
cover also. the loss. of seamen's wages, the law Would be, defeated
Which provided that no seaman should insure his wages. A
similar case to this, in all its particulars, was solemnly
.argued ,
before the judges, in the case of the ship John 'robin, which was
sent out by the owner; Sir John Tobin, to Africa, and was lost
on-her return home. The jurlaois decided against the claim for
nageA then set up by the. administrators of a deceased seaman.
This was a case in point, and upon that, as well as upoa the.
general law, the court ought to reject the application.
Mr. Addams, who appeared on behalf of the seaman, said if
the law was against his client, a most intolerable hardship would
be imposed upon him and upon all other seamen who might
be. placed in a similar situation. In thiccassi the seaman ren-
dered- service for nearly two years. He had undergone hard-
ships, had withstood the perils of the voyage and of the climate,
and because the ship was destroyed, but insured, the seaman
was to lose his wages. He contended that the voyage, in this
case, was oneof.a.divided nature; and that at least the seaman
was entitled to.his wages up to the date of leaving the last port
in' Africa,. it being. proved that a most successful barter had
been carried on. ou behalf of the owners: If the' application
was rejected the owner would, in point of fact, reap the ad-
vantage of the seaman's wages.
Sit...lobri Nieholl said the suit was brought by a Mariner for
wages alleged to be dile to hiM, which claim was opposed by
the-owner.! The facts were statedin a sun-Unary petition, and
the court had to consider whether, if the statements contained
in it v.-ere-proxedi- the . seaman would be entitled to recover;
The ship in this caie.was a total loss, and the whole advantages
expected to arise front the.voyage were lost. The mariner has
no;liee ou the cargo, but on the ship and freight, for the pay
meutof his wages. The voyage wastrom Liverpool US the coast of-
Africaand ba3c,andit was not, therefore, a separate voyage. An
insurance, itappears, had been made on the return cargo, con-
'sisting,qf ivory, palrn.oil, and other articles, but. with this the
seaman had nothing. to do Thi court always felt the strongest
'disposition. to protect this valuahle•class of: men, but it was
bound to decide according tolaw. and the question was, if the
mariner had•in this case illegal tight to recover. The Mariner
could not insure his.own wages, as it was considered that such a
course might make him relax his exertions, in protecting the
ship and cargo and freiehti to induce him to-stick by the ' vessel
'te the last. if then, theanaritior knew. that the. owners had. in.
.sured.the vessel and.eargo, and could recover- hiavageS in case
of atotal loss, it would be .tantamount twat' insurance of the
wages by the, seaman himself. The' policy of the law would
thus be undermined, He was not called 'upon to decide
whether goods received in barter in, a", disfidad. voyage, and
where no freight was carried, would give- an equitable claim to
the seaman for wages, it, being. the admitted principle' that
freight was the mother of wage-4; ' Here, however, all was lost,
auddin was clearly of, opinion that the fact that the ship and
cargo were insuridwoqldinetassist the mariner iii recovering
his wages.. The court would protect seamen: in all their just,
and legal demands, but in this case it felt bound to rejeCt. the-
seaman's petition, and to decraye.ilint'ilie-mminer was not en-
titled tu his wages.