Polynesian. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu], Hawaii) 1844-1864, 1859-05-28
Che polpnesian.
SUPREME COURT.--In Admiralty.
n. c. Brooks Us. G. C. ENBERG, Master of the bark
''Greferberg.'

SUPREME COURT.--In Admiralty.
n. c. Brooks Us. G. C. ENBERG, Master of the bark
''Greferberg.''
Chief Justice Allen delivered his decision as follows
This is libel for the share of the libeant, as first
whaling officer on a whaling voyage to the Northern
Seas and back to Honolulu and also for damages for
deviation OF the voyage from its legitimate purpose of
whaling to trading and visiting, &c
he answer admitted the service and share of the
bellant but denied any deviation from the legitimate
purpose of the voyage, of trading and visiting as al
legged. The counsel for the libellant filed the follow
ing demurrer.
The respondent moves the Court to dismiss the IL
bel in this with to the respondent on the
ground that the allegations in the libel do not set forth
a cause of action cognzable in Court of Admiralty
That 1t was special action the for the non
fulflment of contract. That this Court as a Court
Of Admiralty, had not the power to try the question of
damages in special action on the case That the IL
beant did not aege that he had performed the work.
but claimed damages for being prevented from perform
my his services " which Overrued 1t is a gener-
al principle Of law that for marine service
come within the admiralty jurisdiction The libellant
made contract to serve on board the bark Grefer
Berg, as whaling officer a cruise to the Northern
Seas at stipulated price set forth in the libel and
he alleges that he faithfully performed the terms and
conditions of the contract his part. He further al
leges that there taken by the ship 275 barrels of
oil, that the Master violated the shipping contract by
whaling to that of trading well as many other of
Its stpuations, which it is not necessary for here
to recapluate. The Court regards the cause as set
forth in the libel as clear and explicit 1t is true that
the libel claims for violation Of the contract in
whaling well for payment of the sum stipulated
In the contract for the number of barrels of oil taken
Courts Of Admiralty do not require all the technical
precision and accuracy in pleading which is demanded
in Courts of law. 1t is only requisite that the
cause of action should be plainly and explicitly set
forth, not in any particular formula, but in clear and
lntelhglbe language, so that the adverse party may
understand what he is required TO answer and make
an issue on the charge.-Jenks & Lewis-Wace's Rep
81
The Admiralty has jurisdiction over all maritime
contracts wherever the same may be made or executed
or whatever may be the form Of the stpulations.
De Louie Bait ct ais, 2 Gall. 3y7. There has
been great deal of legal discussion by the ables jur-
lists In relation to the jurisdiction Of the Admiralty
and the common law Courts and at time it was
held, that the Admiralty had no jurisdiction
iners' wages because the Contract was made on land
But this day the right of the Admiralty to entertain
suits for mariners wages is fully acknowledged. So
after the hiring of seamen the owners of the ship
abandon the intended voyage, if it be broken up
from any cause not arising from the fault misc0n
duct of the crew, they entitled to receive wages in
the nature of damages, the amount being dscretiOna
ry and controlled by circumstances of the particular
cases.
Hiyelas in Maritime laws.
Abbot on Shipping, 749.
Peters Adm'y Reports, 26l.
Browns Adm app, 533
Bees Rep, 4S-Ib. 1874
The maritime Codes of foreign nations have adopted
the rule Of the civil law which gives to the seaman
full compensation for the whole period which he has
contracted if he discharged without his default. In
addition TO this the Hanseatc and French ordinances
allow him the expenses Of returning the country of
his departure The Courts of Admiralty of the United
States give the party compensation for the injury he
has sustained according the circumstances of each
particular Chief Justice Story says, " That the
Admiralty which this respect is sometimes followed
by the Courts of common law, does not hesitate to
pronounce for compensation in simple suit for wages
1t is not that the Admiralty cannot sustain suit for
damages, but it deems it proper to award damages in
the shape Of wages He says, that in all cases,
compensation is intended to be allowed which shall be
a complete indemnity for the illegal discharge, and this
is ordinarily measured by the loss of time, and the
penses incurred by the party. The same principle is
sustained in the case Of Sprague vs. Shaw, John
Rep, 1885, where the Court says, 8" That it is
knowedged principle OF the marine law, that if the
master unjustly dismiss a seaman during voyage he
is entitled to his full wages for the VOYAGE Laws of
the Hanse Towns-Act ~.
2 Peters Adm'y Rep, 420.
2 Sumner Reed VS. Garfield, I95.
3 Kent, 239.
Mason, 541.
1t appears that there were shipped at this port in
addition to the full plement Of officers, belonging to
the ship, five additional officers mates, of whom the
libellant the first whaling officer. In the written
contract and shipping articles, the rights and duties of
these whaling officers is FORTH as contradstn-
guished from the officers already belonging the ship.
1t appears in evidence that they to act and did
act boat headers-and the officers proper, boat
steerers. Il is alleged in the libel that he was to have
the management and control of the whaling This is
not the construction which l give to the contract.
The master of the ship invested with the powers
IN no of his command and
do that he has delegated any of this authori
ty by engaging additional officers to his ship, whose
ly duty whaling. They were employed to execute
his lawful orders Ony other construction would make
q separate command board, which is altogether in
compatible with the terms of the shipping articles.
The voyage for whaling, and it IS alleged by the
belant that was diverted from the purpose trad
ing, and thereby caused great damage to him, for
which he should be remunerated.
This denied by the libellee This is the principal
issue between the parties.
1t Is the custom and usage Of whaleshps to take
board some articles of trade, which found conven
and profitable to exchange for supplies for the ship
This is commendable in owners and Matters for 1t Is
very desirable for these persons at sea- to have Oft
en- as NAV be fresh provisions and vegetables 1t is
protection health and ought to be encouraged In
this Captain Enberg conducted with proper regard
for the comfort and health of his men, and deserves
credit for it.
As navigator in fine as q master, in his kind and
generous treatment of his men he is an honor to his
profession If he has erred, it has doubtless arisen
from want of full appreciation Of the duties and
obligations of the whaling service.
The ablest and best masters of ships differ in some
respects in the administration Of its affairs, but can
not be denied that the internal police Of this ship was
creditabe to the master.
1t is very seriously urged here that there was cu
pable negligence and omission in keeping lookout at
the mast head The evidence is somewhat conflicting
in relation to this point, but it does not appear that
the first whaling officer urged the master to per-
NIT him and his associates exercise unusual vigilance
in this particular Had he done this it is not proba
bic that the master would have interpOsed any obec-
ton The only question of difficulty is that of devia
tion of the voyage, and deviation of il from its le-
gtimate purpose of whaling If the evidence sustans
this allegation the libellant is entitled to be indemn-
God nnadn c,ntrnct for this nlinct and nnne nth