The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1863-12-03
THE PACIFIC
Commercial Advertiser.
Supreme COurt---In Admiralty.
RICHARD MATHIsoS
rs.
BERNARD II. DAILY.)
At Chambers, before Justice RoBERTsoS.

BERNARD H.. DAILY.
At Chambers, before Justice ROBERTSON.
JUDGMENT.
The libellant, q colored citizen of The Unite
States. shipped as an ordinary seaman, OF gree
hand. on board OF the whaling bark Martha 2nO
at New Bedford, in the month of September, 1862
Tor a three years voyage in the Pacific Ocean. L
she month of February, 1863, the vessel touched
ut the port of San Carlos, in Chile, and in th'
month Of April arrived of this port On the nigh
OF the llth April, while the ship was lying on anc
off outside Of this port. she was discovered to DC
on fire, IN the fore bold. Through the prompt ex
ertions of the officers and some of the crew, the
fire was extinguished, and the vessel saved from
impending destruction. There were unnIstakable
tokens of the vessel having been w%ilfully set on
fire. and the respondent, who Is master Of the ship,
caused several of the crew, among whom was the
iibellant. to be placed In irons, on suspicion OF
having committed the crime. The ship continued
70 lie on and of, and. on rhe morning of the 18th
April, the master, having had his suspicious of the
ibellant's guilt confirmed, brought him on shore.
and carried him before the Consul of the United
States, who. after an investigation of the matter,
expressed his opinion that, IN justice to the owners
Rof the vessel, the iibellant ought not to be allowed
to proceed TO sea in the ship again. The master
then caused the libellant to be arrested by the
local authorities, and. after an examination had
before the Police Justice of Honolulu, he was duly
ommitted on the 18th April, to stand his trial
before the Supreme Court, ut the July term, or
thereafter, the jurors in attendance for the April
term, having been discharged on the previous day.
The vessel proceeded on her voyage, and the libel
liant was kept in custody until the last day of the
October term of the Supreme Court, when, as the
vessel had not returned with the witnesses for the
prosecution, he was set at liberty by order of the'
Court, under the provisions of Section l17S of thel
Civil Code. the Attorney General being unable toI
proceed against him. The discharge of the libellantI
from custody. under those circumstances. operated. !
by express provision of the Statute. as an a~cquittal |
50 far that the libellant cannot be legally heidi
again to answer. criminally, for the offence with
which he was then charged. Soon after the libel
liant had been released from prison. the ship re-;
turned from the Arctic Ocean, having made a sue
cessiuI cruise The respondent sent a written
request to the libellant to report himself on board
the ship, but he refused to comply with that re-
quest and the Consul of the United States, upon.
application TO him, hesitated or declined to issue
an otleIal request to the Marshal to apprehend the
hbelIant rs u ~deserter, under the provisions of thej
United States Laws and Treaty stipulations.
And, now the Hbeliant presents his libel before:
this Court, claiming that he is entitled to his dis
charge from the shipping contract, by reason of
the acts of the master; that he should be paidi
wages up to this date, at the lay for which bel
agreed to serve for the voyage and that he should
be awarded damages. for alleged maltreatment att
the hands of the respondent.
Before the Court can sustain the libellant's claimI
Tor wages, It must appear either that ne has fulfill
ed the contract of shipment upon his part by serv-I
'6 VIZ W. N"N va e"C fbJb6Cf vi bIdb hC 10 uheAOiS
TO do so through physical disability, or that he isl
prevented fron doing so by the act of the master;
or owners OF the ship 1t is not commended on:
behalf OF the libellant that either Of the first twOl
prerequisites has been shown to exist but il Isl
claimed that he is released from the obligation to-
complate his period of service through the wrong
full acts of the master, and that he was justified ins
his refusal to render himself on board again. I
through Il well founded fear of future harsh treat
meDt at the hands of the respondent. who, ir Isl
alleged. had before displayed 4 cruel and tyranni-t
cal disposition. Z
am unable TO discover anything in the testimony
laid before the Court, touching the conduct OF theH
master towards the hbellant that could afford thes
slightest pretext for holding that the acts of the
former have been. in any degree, wrongful. MALI
cious, or Intentionally Injurious In causing the
Ibellant 30 be handcutfsd and placed IN cOnhnement5
on the night Of the 18th of April, the respondent
did no more than his duty required of him, in viewE
of the strong suspicious that were thrown upon thes
hbellant, in connection with the attempt To burn
the ship. The master appears 70 haze comporteds
himself prudently In that emergency lie used moi
unnecessary severity towards Mathison, OF the
men whe were at first suspected. The libellant was
kept in confinement only from Saturday night till
Tuesday morning, during which time he was al
lowed his meals as usual. and permitted to go "uts
upon deck when necessary Alter an lnqulryk
among the crew, the master suspicious againsts
Mathison became so strong, that he brought him
ON shore and carried him before the Consul, andE
1t was subsequently, resolved to invoke the aid of
the local authorities TO bring MathIson TO trlal-E
The Supreme Court was in session at the time, butz
the jurors had been discharged for the term, andE
the libellant was therefore committed TO await hlst
trial at a future time. 1t does not appear to have
occurred TO those concerned to ask that a special 2
term of the Supreme Court should be held for the
trial OF MathlsOn, a request which might have been !
granted under the peculiar circumstances of the
case, for, IN order 10 prosecute him at the JuIyE
term, 1t would have been necessary to have detain-k
ed here as witnesses, three of the officers and fiveE
or six of the crew of the vessel No doubt theE
respondent fully expected to return to Honoluiuk
IN time for the October term. and had not the shipE
made an unusually long passage down from the
Arctic Ocean, be and the witnesses would have
arrived here In good season tor that term =
But 1t Is cOnrended on behalf of the respondentF.
that, even If the voyage were now terminated, or IL
the libeiant can be held discharged from the fur-s
Their performance of his contract. through the actsk
Of the master, he is debarred from setting up anyE
claim for wages. By reason of his completely In thes
attempt to burn the ship. Had the liOellant beens
regularly tried before u jury, and acquitted of theEs
crime imputed to him, he might have returned tot
his duty on the ship with credit, completed his :
contract, and entitled himself TO his full wages for S
the entire voyage. But his discharge By the Su-
preme Court. without his having undergone a trial, 4
operates merely as q technical acquittal, creating q Z
bar To his being prosecuted criminally, and doess
not preclude the master or owners from setting up,
rs a defence 20 the libellant's claim for wages, theS
plea that he attempted TO FIRE the vessel. Ihee
ibellant, by commencing the present suit, volun-S
tariiy challenged his accuseTs to produce the proofsE
of his guiIt. and they have done -. \ larre mum H