The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-11-10
Marine Court.
nAF .t4r.a


Nov 9-Charles Il Reed ~. Robert L. 7dylor-rhis is
action for wages brought against defendant for
service rendered on board the ship Hathaway, on her
voyage from the port Of San Francisco to Ceao the
Chincha Islands, for guano aud to return to Hampton
Roads for orders The plaintiff shipped callao, and
the SHIP her return voyage the 14th of
reached Cape HATTIE whsn at about clock NJ she
head the south bank of the shoals off the Cape
From the evidence the 1t seems that she struck
about six miles from the mainland-that there WAS not
much wind At the tme but some time after her striking
southeast gale sprsng up and the sea became rough
after humping a number of times she seemed firmly
bedded. schooner which hove in sight hailed BY
the captain and requested to remain alongside Of the
ship all n ht which refused-tbat the boats
lowered and the captain gave orders to the and
teen and eleven others who had been picked up from
. wreck, to pull of to the schooner, taking only
their bag: and clothing Tais they did leaving wing
half an hour after the first. 1t appears that every
means was tried by the captain to get the
would have been jeopardised by remaining longer on
beard that the ship loaded with in bulk and
belonged to the Peruvian ovsnmsnt and also that hat
that the ship went from there to Caao for
The defence to the action is that the contract between
Is entitled o wages only after the voyage Is COM
pee ard that when the vessel wrecked without fraud
ns be bs h the
else Of his discretion master to the lives OF
his crew. had the right to abandon the shp and that
the ship and freight being lost to the defendant BY NO
wrongful act Of his his agent no wages have accrued
to the plaintiff The plaintiff contends that he has fully
csmped with the terms Of tbs contract, by faithfully
performing his duty till he ordered BY the captain
TO aba odon the ship and that this abandonment having
been caused By the captain who stood IN the place ct
much ~ II the voyage had been successfully termi
mated He also contends that the presumption is that
proven and that the onas Of such proof i on tt.
sndant and that II the crew stood BY the vessel 80
,h'r; ", any snd Of '.f nor
There question that the very basis Of the contract
between the owner and his seamen was that freight
age. The principle that freight is the mother 81
wages" Il too fully recognized to be questioned
The contract Of the mariner contract for the
wages made dependent the successful issue Of ths
enterprhs for reasons Of policy in order that the mari
ana cargo 20 Est tho motive to sxsrton may b. drawn
n. is4l The owner therefore, is absolved from the pay
tho mariner may have been in his employment previou
70 such loss And this role Of he entirety Of the coatrac
Is only modified By the equitable Intervention anothe
principle TO give the mariner wages when and 80
a. the vessel has, or might have carried freight (Th
Malta, Hogg Adm. R. 1872 Porthier Lounges Mar
The contract between the parties WAS that the seane
should 60 isOm The port Of San Francisco to Calao
in u. Ths ship vent gu
in ballast for cargo which shs procured, and Va
Iroces ding to port Of discharge when she was lost
There vas then freight earned the outward voy
sge and the loss Of the vessel the homsward voyag
caused loss of the freight and consequently the plain
tn lost his wages, unless the loss Of the vessel
csused BY the fraud fault Of the mas ter owner
Che Malta, Hogg, Adm r., 1881 Tho questions ns
ar'se-frst, Have the vessel and been lost an
nd lid the loss by the negligence fraud,
misconduct OF the master owner, she volunta
" abandoned by them without cause The proof show
that the ship head the south bank oEhs Hattera
Shosstbat at tie time sh. struck southeast gale ha
commenced which was constantly triving her on-ths
the pacevas dangerous for vessels and that the
tain abandoned her only when satisfied that he had
every extron TO get her of and that in his judgment
wasimposshle TO tave her. consequently the loss Of tn
ship involved the loss Of the peculiar cargo whswhic
abe was eighed think this proof ID sufficient TO sho
mo face the loss Of the vessel and freight at all events
i~ss sufficient to put the plaintiff proof showing th
contrary The only question nov TO be disposed OF
Was the loss bona fde, without negligence fraud
the part Of the defendant the master There
nothing In the testimony which justihes any such idei
No inducemt shown for it, and the whole testimon
indicates that the loss xpected, and caused
misfortune, and without fraud Judgment for deendAn
Huchocsk and Riggs Waliax.-Ths plaintiffs sho
that they Commenced action against Wallace to q
count Tor bis share In joint adventure In which he
the plain till and r. Saulter each interested on
third that they made advances for the joint conosr
and that Wallace and oultsr each owed them S6
for such advances that they inadvertently omitted
state to their Attorney when the action commenee
that soulter jointly concerned In the adventure,
they ak to amend their proceedngs adding Soulter
defendant without prejudice to attachment alrsA
issued. Order that the amendment be made IL desired