Polynesian. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu], Hawaii) 1844-1864, 1859-03-12

tract scrupulousy and not vacate it without
The special injury arises from the fact of the
discharge, and from the inability to find employment in
the same service. master has legal right to an
nul contract at his pleasure any more than seaman
has, although the remedy in the case and the other
Is very different; while the seaman NAV be compeel
by force to fulfill the master is only liable in damages
" Ihe law, says Parsons, =" makes important dis
uncon between he officers, mates as they are usu-
ally called, and the common sailors" The former are
entitled to the same rights, advantages and security
although their duties and obligations are of higher
order The Counsel for the lbelant contends that the
expenses of his return to his home in New London and
the value OF his time IN returning, should be included
In the estimation of damages The maritime law makes
a striking distinction in II of wrongful dismissal
between the occurrence before and after the VOYAGE Is
begun Judge Story says, that if seaman is wrong
fully dismissed after the voyage is begun, he entitled
to his wages for the whole voyage; not So when the
dismissal is made before the voyage begun In the
latter case be entitled TO wages during his retainern
the service, and a reasonable compensation for any
special damage, according to the circumstances of tie
cIse.'
In the case Emerson vs. Rowland, l Mason As. AZ
Judge Story said " In some of the adudged cases in
deed wages up to the successful termination of
age have been allowed IN Others wages up to the re-
turn Of the seaman to the country where he was orig
nhiy shipped, without reference the termination of
tht yoy%g But these apparent ntrareties easi-
y re'on bile when the circumstances of each case are
Carefully xlmined In all the cases a COMPENSATION
i. utenGel TO be allowed which shall be complete in
demnty for the illegal discharge and this Is ordinarily
measured by the loss of time and the expenses incurred
by the party. 1t is presumed that after his return
home, or after the lapse of reasonable time for that
purpose, the seaman without loss engage in the
service OF other persons; and where this hap be
the case, wages are allowed only until his return, al
though the voyage may not then have terminated On
the other han If the voyage has terminated before
his before reasonable time for that purpose
has APPEL, wages allowed up to the time of his re-
turn, for otherwise he would be without any adequate
indemnify" The Beaver, Rob- 80; ship " Exc
ter Rob. 26I; Hoyt vs.. Wildire, 8 Johns 5l8
Broo,s Dorr, z Mass 80; Ward vs. Ames Johns.
l3S; Sullivan Morgan IL Johns 66; the Polly
and Kitty" Perers's Adm 420, 423 note; the
GlOcester,'' Peters Adm 403, 400, note; the "Lt
tie JOHN l Peters Adm. lis, 1l9, l2J.
Judge Ware, in the of Hutchinson vs.. COombs,
Am. Jur. 81, says that, /" Ii seaman is discharged
abroad without ustI6able cause and without his own
consent, the of damages is the full of
wages till the return of the vessel and the expenses of
his The intermediate earnings of the sea-
man may be deducted from the expenses of his return,
but not from the wages due
In the of MahOOn vs. the "Glocester,'' Peters
Adm. 403, the doctrine is held that where seamen
were turned off from prvateer without lawful cause,
they were held to be entitled to their proportion of the
prizes taken during their absence
If master of a vessel is Wrongfuy discharged from
his command, he would not be satisfied probably if he
paid for the time spent making the contract, any
more than a merchant would be who had made
tract for supply of goods for the season. and the
der refused to deliver them, finding that he could make
abeter SALE The principles of law and of justice
quire compensation according the circumstances of
each particular case and necessarily limited to the
time occupied in making the contract in its partial
fulfment The master of a ship has not the frequent
opportunities Of service the officers the officers
the seamen, and the ability of the far superior
to the other therefore different Of compensation
for the breach of the is very properly made
1t does not appear by the evidence that the beant has
been injured by any declarations of the respondent
distinct from the dismissal from service although the
answer may be regarded somewhat infamed but the
dismissal itself will cause injury in degree for
occurs at of the year when there few Op-
porunities engage in the whaling service in that
pacity.
The material points ably presented at the bar have
been carefully considered and it only remains for the
Court pronounce the decree which is, that the
of One Hundred Dollars, together with costs Of suit, be
awarded to the libelant. Decree accordingly.
Mr.. Harris, for the Libellant.
Mr. Bates, for the Libellee