The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1863-12-03

4 the allegations of harsh treatment, or OF having
I displayed u cruel and tyrannlcal disposition, made
+ against a ~ship-master, been more trlumphantly re-
i PEELED and disprOved than they have been In this
/ case.
= The last PRAYER of the libellant is, that he be de-
3 clared absolved from the further fulhllment OF his
q contract, by reason of the acts OF The respondent.
Z But nothing has been shown In the whole course of
the RESPONDENTS conduct which would authorize
s the Court so 10 hold or declare. No act yet done
by him amounts To q violation or legal determine
ton of the contract. In causing the libellant TO be
Econfued on board the vessel, and in endeavoring TO
4 bring him 10 trial, the respondent simply did what
was his bounden duty; and he performed it as a
shumane man and a iudicious ship-master. In view
Sof the clear evidence of the libellant's wrongful and
malicious conduct, the Court would regard 1t as an
thing to be able 20 decree, JudIclally, that
The contract Is at an end, for If the libellant should
sbe permitted TO 90 to sea In the vessel again, the
Interests of the owners might thereby, Tor obvious
lieas0ns, be seriously compromised. But the Court
,cannot thus decree at the suit of the libellant him
il must leave him Just where it found him.
His position is a singular one. Had he been tried
10y a jury and convicted, the conviction would have
severed him from the ship. But IS the matter now
Stands, his contract for service on board the Mar
tha I'd is still subsisting. legally, and yet 1t is diff
cult TO see how he could be dealt with as u deserter,
under the provisions Of the Laws of Congress. Had
a cross libel been presented to the Court on behalf
OF the owners. praying that Mathison should be
to return on board and perform his stip-
ullted duty, as bound by maritime law, IL might
have been within the power of the Court to have
decreed accordingly, and 10 have ordered his rendi-
ton by the Marshal. | should have felt very much
so 10 have ordered. but only with n view
70 facilitate his being regularly discharged before
the Consul. and to relieve the master from his OBJ
to return the libellant to the United States.
The libellant was allowed to commence his suit
upon filing a juratory caution, and it appears he
has no means Of paying the costs incurred. Were
| not satisfied that the libellant's Proctor has been
imposed upon by his client, L should deem it right,
and in accordance with the practice of Admiralty
Courts. to hold the Proctor responsible for costs.
Ii would be but q slight penalty for the superlative
lalsehood of his libel if the Court should order the
libellant's commitment TO prison at hard labor for
l term sufficient TO cover the amount of the costs,
reckoning at the usual rate At which fines are thus
under our Statutes. Bpt l forbear to
make such an order, lest / might, by imprisoning
the libellant. embarrass the action of the Consul of
The United States in any course which he may feel
himself authorized to adopt touching the matter.
The libel is dismissed. with costs.
A. B. BATES, Esq, for the Libellant.
c. c. HARRIS, Esq, for the Respondent.
Honolulu, 18th November, 1868.