The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-11-15
United states District Court.
IN ADMIRALTY.
Before Judge Belts.

Nov. S.-Henry Marshall rs. WHtidm Creighton, mas
ter Of the schooner Joseph j. Williams = Patrick Stanton
The same.-By THE CoURr-These actions brought
for like services on the same voyage, on board the
schooner Joseph williams, and to $40 each
for the run The bels aege hiring of the libellsns
at St Domingo for voyage to this port at the wages
Of $40 to each. The respondent answers orally and
denies the contract averring that the bellants
put board his vessel by the American Consul and
brought to the United States destitute seamen
The evidence supports the answer but the bsllants
In the vessel-Marshal a. cock and Stanton
he would pay them each the $40 received BY him of
the CoDsu for bringing them home. Ii is plainly the
duty Of seamen brought home to aid, by their
vices in the business and navigation of the ship In
most instances the $40 paid would no com
for the passage The statute accordingly requires them
to DO duty the voyage according to their several
abilities Act February 2s 1903 S4 vol IT, s. l.. 203.
men would, therefore, be nudum paetura, and way
more obligatory upon him than one to pay seaman
extra wages beyond his contract provided he would do
his duty. The only consideration upon which this
Ragement IL attempted to be upheld is that the
spendent said II Marshal would cook, and Stanton do
duty forward he would pay each Of them the money he
received from the Consul There no occasion for
the promise to stanton The vessel amply manned
Without his assistance, and his services we're no
way indispensable TO her navigation. The regular
cook Of the vsssei was confined to his berth when
Msrshall came on board and his services cook
more important. He not sailor, and could aid
the vessel no other way than cook or steward in
which capacity he made his last voyage lie was there
fore bound by statute the II he had chi pped
for the purpose perform that duty on board These
suits got up generally In the orecase and supported
BY the testimony ~ the men bringing them ought not
TO be encouraged and loose conversations by master
on beard given from recollection by sailors who had
interest in the matter not calculated to afford the
most satisfactory evidence Of all that transpred and
the circumstances accompanying the declarations.
Upon the ground, however, that these consuls men
were obliged by lawto do the duty performed by them,
thsll deny the compensation sued for. Libel dis
missed with SUN mary costs.
fiom II. Dfosey Frederick Centre, master Of brig
kanafusky The lbellant sues for wages cook and
board the brig and insists that entitled
TO recover, Notwithstanding payment In full Of his
wages and bis receipt therefor IL proved TO have been
made the ermin alton Of the voyage The testimony
Of the shipping notary before whom the settlement
with the crew made proves in this that the
wages Of the libellaDt sued for the sub
after of the settlement for which the money paid him
was rsceipted. The settlement was conducted with
great precsuton TO the sailors by the notary and
the court warmly approves having dsinteretea per-
son present on such occasions to attend to their In
teress and 10 Alright adjustment u their demands
In this case the proof OF full payment Is clear and
tstiffsotory without the receipt but the Las permits
any oral explanation Of receipt, necessary TO itl
proper understanding and effect. The libel must be
dtmsfsd, with summary costs