The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-09-13
Decisions In Admiralty.
UNITED STATE CIRCUIT COURT,
Rafora Hon fufoa Nafaon

Before Hon Judge Nelson.
FIT. a-Ths Ship Burd Ttsd Thomas Boryn.-
APPEAL IN hd~iraity was hoe nled against Ia.
ship for seamsns wages Bolton shipped at the port OF
nom thai port 10 the port q New York al the rate Of
ny dollars month, and signed the usual shipping
,ieles some two months wages were advanced and The
libel Is died 10 the balance, which would be
eighty dollars at the agreed rate The defence
that Bolton misrerrcsentcd bus dncss and qualifications
steward, and also that he unfahful and grossly
uattenve his duties board the vessel during toe
voyage The proofs IN the all way, esiao
fishing utter Incompetence ana unsgllfuncss steward
OF vessel and elso wiiul negligence and natenton 10
his duties alter repeated warnings and admonons by
The officers Of the ship The answer given TO this
dtnoe that the master under the facts stated shoad
have discharged the heliant; and that inasmuch he
continued In employ steward tor voyage
according 10 the agreement and until Us termination tho
defence is unavailable We agree that " II had been
show M the that the master amer having discover
ed the WITNESS Of the seaman for toe duties for which
be shipped, bad nm opportunity 70 asehayge bfn from
the vefsel from the condiu1n or his crew. might
have disraied him and put another In his place, would
ns unreasopsoe Dol unJast 70 permit defence q
fore IN the Gaze OF shsre duty, or duty upon
eonstng vessels. should be strongly dtstnciiued 70
courage refusal TO pay full wages where the period Of
employ mem bad been worked out. Bot voyage NJ
r. dieicnt There may be opportunity IN discharge
the seaman from the chip the complement Of hands
substiue could be procured snd tsra eli dschsred
under rcumsta oes IN which he ,ud not be put ashore
be must be supported the remainder OF the voyage 10
all such ike the only protection or The
and against imposition wiltui negligence OF the
teaman. WDuid 10 DC 70 Ytrut Tue SCI 40
here, namely an abatement Of wages Hands obtaining
employ ment OF a special character board vessel
steward able bodied scamcu are responsible for
sonabe ski such and acquaintance with their duties,
and honest ard faithful discharge OF them There
s difference In this respect between the condition Of
seamen and any other description Of service tor hire
Courts are more ndugent in the OF searnens COZ
tracts from cons liberation OF their dependent condition
and we would no, lightly interfere claim for WAGES
learned Judge Ingerso, who decided this case thought
The should have discharged the belant and that
the defence not available alter hs continuance in
service during the whole period contracted for Dor the
reasons above stated am unable 70 concur In that
xi,sst var Wtalis vs. M ssamiaa Jrsy I,nd@an.
peal in Admiralty The libel filed this case 70 re.
running account Of stores furnished the Jenny
Lind. commencing on the 18th April, 1884, and ending
10Th october following amounting IN be aggregate TO the
Of t1s6 ~. Dennis Harris the claimant was mort
sseee OF the vessel and application the court was
allowed TO In and defend and obtained discha gc
Of her from the attachment giving The usual bond
The defaut in pay ment q one Of The instamcas due
the mortgage secured tho 2iet OCTOBER which gave
70 ~ mortsssee the right possession This happened
the day ate, the levyrg Of the attachment under a.
ore, sp rsbi 10 he ees. !. the time tbe xss.o no
seized. be vas impropery allowed TO come In and de-
tend Tho position cannot be maintained. party bc-
coming interested in the subject matters ~ the litigation,
after the Institution Of the sut be admitted 10
and proec, his interest, application Is made within
REASONABLE time This IL q common practice both In ID Q
sdmra;ity and equity courts: and IL would bc very
,pjust, besides leading 70 vexstous litigation,
we're the rule otherwise. The party would ne.
also urged that mortgage had not such an
In vessel would authorize him appear and
end How this would be In case where the right 70
he did not exist II not h
IN this the right Of possession existed and not only
o. the vessel reduced 70 actual possession and the
rtgaree had right 70 hold for the satisfaction 81 his
dstt II has also been urged that assuming the nortga
see had the right 70 come and defend for the purpose
roectng his interest st the lbellant had shown
valid lien uron the vessel which the court should enforce
The Jenny lind domestic vessel and lien for the
stores ponds upon the local law. The statute OF New
ofr fbo ipnp M tho ol.l.o
part RON the port 1T which she when The deb, was
acted 10 some other port within the State the debt
shs cease 70 be lien 81 the expiration Of twelve DAYS
sfte the day OF such departure. During the period with
in wi ch this account accrued, the Jenny Lind was en-
eaeeo the daily transportation OF passengers and freight
from this port 70 Haverstrsv touching Sing Sing and
Tarrytowp, westchester county. We have repeatedly
held hat voy ages 70 this extent departures within
The mesnirg Of the statute and u the twelve DAYS elapsed
before libel hled the lien ceased We think the decree
t,ow oism'ssipg The libel, was right, and should be
affirmed.