The day book. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 1857-1867, 1866-01-23


Mayor TABB's Decision IN THE MurrNY Use
Delivering the opinion OF the COURT 'n0 ""yO'
As to the question of my jurisdiction IN TINS
o.,o 7 have no difficulty. The arguments urged
bv the learned counsel, to show want OF yurisolc-
soa ;sJ;ction before every tribunal in the land,
and the consequence would be, foreign ships
arriving in ports of the United states Win onenq
;no seomen on board-seamen guilty OF atroclous
cr;mes-would have no alternative but to keep
ths guilty sailors on board their chips till she
shall return to the foreign ports. This Is an ao-
surdity in consequence, which prove the un-
,oundness of the position. ,, sc
There is, no doubt, the government anu Ia" ~
acountrv prevail on board ship ofthat country;
on whatever waters the said ship may s sfa
in whatever cline she may be m9oreo 'u gnrl;sb
an offence committed, on ooaro ~ 81 gu 80.
ship for example, while she IS on t!ie n.kua oras H.
or when she may be moored, IN waters unoer tle
;nrisdcton of another power, is an offence against
ths laws of England-and it may be granted, IN
such case, it is by comfy, that magistrate OF
the vicnage of peace and offence, taxes luris-
Siction But in the case at bar the offence charg-
al ia alleged to have been committed, not only
m hoard Ship, but within the limits of the City
of Norfolk It is proved. that the mariners re.
Sn.ed to 90 on board their ship when they were IN
the city of Norfolk. In such case Justice OF
ths Peace of the City of Norfolk has jurisdiction,
both under the act of Congress and under the
statuts of Virginia, to enquire into complaint OF
desertion and characterization on the part OF sea-
men, and may commit or discharge from custody
The act of Congress provides that
If such ship or vessel is fit to proceed on her
men or mariners shall refuse to proceed on the
voyage it shall and may be lawful, for any JUS
tice Of the Peace, to commit, by warrant under
hi, hand and seal any such seamen or mariner, to
the common jail of the county or corporation
And the statute of Virginia provides that:
Justice before whom a complaint against sea-
men is tried for desertion, &C., if the offence
nroved. may commit such seamen to the Jail of
his county or corporation, &c. But If 1t appear
that any such seaman, while on board such vessel
has good ground to apprehend danger to his Life,
limb or to his health, should he be compelled to
90 on board such vessel, the Justice VIII dis
charge him from custody.
These plain provisions settle the question of jul
risdiction. The Court will therefore proceed to
state, that the charge of mutiny. in the opinion
of the Court, is not sustained by the proof.
Mutify means insurrection, sedition, tumult,
turbulence. No testimony has been detailed be-
FIRE the Court to show that these men were facti-
GUS tumuluous, or seditious. The testimony Tor
the prosecution distinctly proves, tnat tness men
complained that the ship was unseaworthy; that
they had badly suffered on the voyage from the
coast of Africa, because of this unseaworthness
that it was matter about which there could be
no dispute, and therefore they refused to proceed
on the voyage.
Under particular state of facts, mariners may
refuse to perform duty; may refuse to proceed on
contemplated voyage, and be justified in their
refusal under the laws of the land.
In the case of Rice vs. Polly and Kitty, Pc
ter's Admiralty reports, page 420, it was held
"Well grounded apprehensions of personal
safety will Justify seamen in leaving the ships that
when mariners enter into articles for voyage,
they do not thereby put themselves out OF the pro-
lection of the laws"
And in Flanders treatise on the law of ship
ping, it is laid down that
eff the officers of ship insist on proceeding on
avovage and the ship is unworthy, the crew has
right to resist and refuse obedience. 1t Is
case of justifable self-defence against an undue
exercise of power"
But if necessary repairs are made, and the snip
rendered seaworthy, then the seamen are bound
to return to duty. In the case OF Porter vs.. An
drews. 9th Johno reports, $50. The vessel after
her departure on her voyage sprung aeak, and
put back for repairs. The seamen upon the re-
pairs being completed refused to go ION board again,
upon the ground the repairs were insufficient.
The Court decided the seamen were bound to re-
turn to duty.
FROM the views now presented, should decide
to commit these men to await the requsition OF
the captain of the ship. But the question is raised
as to the validity of the shipping articles by which
it is sought control these mariners. The learned
counsel commented on the fact, that the termini
of voyage must be distinctly specified in the ar
ticles, or the mariner is not bound. The Court
has no hesitation in announcing this to be IN
doubted law. according to the highest authority
in the decisions of maritime courts in England
and in this country, viz:
That the voyage, with the intendment of the
statute, means one having definite commence.
ment and end. The terminus a quo, and the ter
minus ad quens must be stated precisely.
When the terminus of voyage are distinc ly
stated in the articles, additions that vague are
void for the uncertainty.
1t has been decided that voyage from New
York to Curacao aud elss,ohors means, in ship
ping articles, voyage from New York to Cur
racoa and the word elsewhere is elected as being
void for uncertainty.
In the present shipping articles ths language,
from the terminus to any port OF the habltaoie
globe is indefinite, vague, and uncertain as any
language that could be used.
The Court therefore, under authority of law
decides that the shipping articles in thi. case be-
Ing void for uncertainty, as to the termini OF The
voyage, that the mariners arraigned before the
court, be discharged from custody; and that their
wages be paid to them to this day, the lotn oil
January, 1866.