Polynesian. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu], Hawaii) 1844-1864, 1859-03-12
HONOLULU, MARCH 12, 1859.
Che 1Dolpnesian.
SUPREME COURT.--In Admiralty.
Decision of Chief Justice ALLEN
GEORGE HARRIS vs. FRED. WILLIAMS, Master of the
ship 90 Cincinnati"

GEORGE HARRIS vs. FRED. WILLIAMS, Master of the
ship &" Cincinnati
This is suit in the admiralty in a cause of damages
It appears that George Harris the beant, shipped on
about the Sd Of January last past board the ship
" CINCINNATI, of which Frederick Williams is MASTER
chief mate, for whaling voyage, for the compensa-
ton of the 23d lay and that the said Williams the
next day after the shipment, AMI before the
ment of the intended voyage dismissed him from
vice; and although said Harris rendered his services
again the day thereafter, he still refused
cOgniZe him chief mate but expressly dismissed him
from service board. The respondent answers that
he justified in dsmssing libelant, on the ground
Of incOmpetency, and that he is dishonest and dis
reputable man, as he verify believes.
1t does appear that the libellant made the con-
tract under any fse pretenses and there ull op
porunity for the respondent have ascerained about
his qua ihcatiOns among the seafring community for
he has been in this service twenty thirty years.
but he neglected do this. He makes the contract
and representations to him about the lbelant,
the responsibility to discharge him, and comes into
court and justieS himself that Harris is only in-
competent but dishonest. do deem it essential tu
give detailed statement of the evidence. Iti admit
ted that Capt Coggeshd from whose ship he dis
charged last fall if present, would say that urls
incompetent ocer ana it is also proved that he did
say =" that Harris had q good name at New Bedford,
and was TO have 81 10 bonus but that he could have
got as good man without giving so large bonus"
regret that this witness is not in Court: differences
both are very good and competent men, and it is al
ways unsafe TO take the sweeping declarations of
To the destruction of another IN the business of his life
There Is also testimony of witness who knew him,
and another witness who had seryel with him many
years ago, well who served with him on the
ship " Herald, in 1854, who speak of him favorably
iii this service. The latter witness testies that Harris
who was the master of the ship Sc Herald, took eleven
or thirteen whales of the twenty five taken the voy
age Ihls IS not an indication of ncompetency, and
= - 4
t-day as he at that time Ii is not proved that
IS in bad health of incorporate habits or that he
has been negligent, dsobedient in servc no espe-
cla reason for ncompetency assigned but he sought
To be placed In ordinary the general ground of in
competency. Various opinions entertained of the
competency of chief officer; there is decided differ
ence IN their efficiency; excel in physical strength,
others in judgment and experience; some in the
prime OF manhood and others have passed the merid-
an OF life, but still very useful men, their expert
ence aud good judgment making for the depreciation
of their manly vigor The Court cannot declare the
hbelant incompetent for service from the evidence given
That there are efficient officers is doubtless true;
but because there are, 1t declare him
competent 1t appears that he has been many years
master OF vessel: this would not render HIM ncom-
petent first officer. His experience ought to give
man skill and ability in command. In all the pursuits
OF hie there Is great disparity in the ability of those
gagged, still none can be treated unworthy of hire
unless specific shown of deficiency of qua6ca-
uons for the special service.
General allegations Of those who have served with
the individual not sufficient, especially when dis
proved by those who have The testimony of the one
from actual knowledge and personal observation and
the other from rumor, which is often unfounded
In relation to the charge Of dishonesty while in
mand Of the ship Herald'' of opinion that it is
entirely unsupported by the evidence.
In view, therefore, of this case, which regard as
wrongful dismissal of a before the commence
ment Of the voyage, what is the proper principle of
codes of the most enlightened nations, find that in
similar the rule of the ConsOlae del Mare and of
Raceus is that the wages shall be paid in the same man.
ner as if the mariner had performed the whole Voyages
yet In similar case the ordinances of the Hanse towns
ana OF france give the mariner only third part,
and the ordinances of .Wisby one-haf part OF his
wages although in of dismissal after the voyage
is begun, the whole wages allowed. The settled
rule the admiralty law is administered in England,
IS that if a is wrongully dismissed before the
voyage begun he is entitled wages during the time
OF bis service and to reasonable compensation for any
special damage which he may have sustained. Fan-
ders, in his work maritime law, lays down lis rule
That IT, after the hiring of seamen the of the
ship abandon the intended voyage, if it be broken
up from any cause not arising from the fault mis-
Conduct OF the they entitled to receive wages
IN the nature of damages the amount being discretion
airy and controlled by the circumstances of the parcu
lar case" Abbott Shipping, 749; Wolf vs. the Brig
Oder Peters Adm R,p. 26l; Parry VS.. the
g Peggy brown Adm. App. 533; Bray VS., the
I" Atalana. Bees Rep. As; the 9 Fair American
i'd l35. And l regard the prime pie equa ly sound
when the seaman Is wrongfully dismissed before The
voyage is begun. Calls 50. There seems to be good
in his rule of awarding damages Where II sea.
is dismissed "A given day and shipped the same
day equally good wages and without injurious and
untUunded aspersions on his character the damages
certainly would be nominal only. In other cases he
may be retained shore for months before another
opportunity to snip offers; and indeed speciI damages
80 is in he rule of 6xiu
the amount according the circumstances of the par
ticular case.
In the case of ship Z" The City Of London" Eng
lish Admiralty Reports W Rob. 49, it appeared that
mariner had shipped voyage to New South Wales
and the East Indies, and back TO England, and was
discharged by the master before the commencement of
the voyage, two days after the shipping articles had
been signed.
Lushingtln, Judge says " that the mariner in be-
in thus deprived Of his employment on board this YES
sci, has sustained loss for which he is entitled to
remedy In all cases Of this description loss will
generally the seaman so discharged. The
amount Of that loss, however, vary according
circumstances and in cases, is obvious the 10
sustained may be very considerable For instance, the
discharge Of the mariner may occur at of the
yer when another eng cement cannot be obtaned the
consequence OF this be that the must for
the time be thrown altogether of employ For
this, it is clear, he must have remedy
All the cases referred to apple Ibe to the fixed
wages OF merchant seamen. In the lay, or share OF
whale ships there can be basis to decree settlement
Of proportion til the voyage has minated, therefore
as the hbeant has thought proper institute his suit
before the voyage has commenced, under any rule Of
the maritime code any country, compensation based
upon the value of contract dependent upon such
tngency, is without precedent and repugnant to the
principles which regulate the measure of damages The
contract for marine service varies in some material
spects from those to be executed upon land. When
neglects refuses to fulfill his contract of person.
al service he cannot be compelled to perform by any
restraint upon the freedom of his person The remedy
il dnrnn Al nf