The Hawaiian gazette., 1870-12-14

the port of Honolulu. shipped on the Hawaiian
bark Mauna Loa on a whaling, sealing or trading
voyage not to exceed twelve months, or until
the said bark should return to said port. provided
that occurred before the expiration of twelve
months, the said Pauhiwa as boatsteerer for a
seventeen lay and the said Nahinu and Kohalu,
each as an ordinary seaman, for hundred and
fftieth lay, That for the due performance Of the
agreement, shipping articles were signed, and are
in the respondents possession. That in pur-
suance thereof the libellans entered into the re-
spondents service on OF abou; August 10, 1869.
. That the ssid vessel proceeded to sea- with
the libeants on board for the North Pacific
Ocean and to the seal islands near Bhering's
Sea, off Alaska, where her catch of seal skins
amounted to 500 and after the libellants said
term of twelve months had expired, that she
sailed into the port of San Francisco. where the
libellants were duly discharged by Henry W.
Severance ESQ. the Hawaiian Consul there.
owing to the expiration of their term of ship
ment and that the said Consul at the time of
their discharge fixed the value of the seal skins
at three dollars each and certified that they were
entitled to be paid their respective lays according
TO that valuation. Aud the IIbeIlants say the
value So fixed by the Consul was the true value
of the said skins in San Francisco, and is the
true value thereof in Honolulu.
3. That after the said discharge, they returned
to Honolulu in September. 1870, but the re-
spondents wholly neglected and refused to pay
them their respective lays according to the vau-
alton by the said Consul or according to their
true valuation, but settled with them for only
one half of that amount, yauing the seal skins at
one dollar and fifty cents each.
l. The libellants faithful performance of their
contract
5. That the premises are true, and within the
Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction of this
Court
The answer l. admits the allegations in the
first article of the libel, and produces the ship
ping articles.
3 Says that the bark proceeded to sea at the
time alleged in the libel, for the North Pacific
Ocean, to the Ochotsk Sea- off Sagbalien on the
Russian coaA and not on the coast of Alaska,
and that up to tie time Of leaving the 0chotsk
Sea, her catch of sal skins was ii 500, but de-
nes that she sailed for San Francisco after the
twelve months had expired averring that she
cleared away for San Francisco Aug. 5, 1870,
arriving there g" after the 18th day of August,
l87O7 Denies that the libelants we're duly or
legally discharged by Mr.. Severance, the Ha-
waiian Consul at San Francisco. or that he
legally fixed the value of the skins at SO 90 each,
and submits that if they were discharged by the
Hawaiian Consul it was. without authority or
justification by law also that if ne certified that
the libellants were entitled to be paid according
to his valuation. it contrary to the laws Of
this Kingdom, and the express stipulations of the
contract, and not binding on the respondents.
Neither admits nor denies that the valuation Of
the Hawaiian Consul was the true valuation of
seal-skin furs at San Francisco or at Honolulu,
but AYERS that the valuation thereof fixed by
the. United States Consul at Honolulu, is and
was at the date of the arrival of the said vessel
at this port, one dollar and fifty cents.
3. Admits that after the lbeIlants return here
in September last, the respondents, and also the
Hawaiian Government shipping agent, refused
to pay according to the valuation by Mfr. Sew
erance. and AYERS that they settled with them
according to the laws of this Kingdom by the
agency of the said agent, at the U. 5. Consular
pr.ces, aud that the libellants expressed them
selves as satisfied Herewith and that the re-
spondents paid them Sl4 90 each for extra SER
vices above the twelve months.
T. Admits the Iibelants faithful service under
the contract. except as to Pauhiwa. who is
charged with having brought liquor aboard and
got drunk, and with having made disturbance
thereby, contrary to the orders and good dsci-
pne of the ship, whereby he was liable to for
feiture Of wages.
5. That by the terms of shipment, the libellants
were to be discharged and paid off at Honolulu
at .. S. Consplar prices and to be settled with
by the Government Agent here, according to the
Act concerning the shipping and discharge Of
native seamen, approved June %, 1855, and that
these terms were explained to them by the Gov
ernment Agent, and also by the respondents.
g. That on shipping the libellants, the master
and owners gave their Bond to the Governor of
Oahu. under Section l46, Civil Code in the penal
snm of $500 for each mans return to this port,
and were IN law and by the condition Of the bond
required to return them here. .3d not discharge
them IN a foreign port. That the Hawaiian Con-
sui insisted on the discharge and payment of the
men because the cargo was discharged. The
master objected thereto, but the Consul answered
that otherwise he could not clear, and TO the
masters remonstrance that the men might desert
and the bond become forfeit. replied that d" he
would look out for that. and put them on board
said vessel and allow them 500 each for working
the ship back to Honolulu" That the master
was compelled in order to clear 10 certify to the
Consul the accounts of the crew, and to accede
to this action, although explaining that the men
were to be discharged and paid off in Honolulu.
for which port he. was about to sail. and express
ing his fears of trouble with the shipping agent
here
The Replication denies that by the terms of
shipment. the libelIants we're to be discharged
and paid of at Honolulu at q. 5. Consular
prices. alleging that the clause to that effect in
the shipping articles is under the head Of Re-
marks and not in the body Of the articles, is in
English. and was never understood by the men.