The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1889-07-17
FROM M. TAOMPS0N'S DIGEST
OF HAWAIIAN SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS.
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION AND PRAC-
TICE.

To limit the jurisdiction of the
Court sitting as Court of admiral
ty under the provisions of the 2lst
Article of the Treaty with France,
in suits brought by foreign seamen,
it must appear that the term of
service, under their shipping con-
tract, has not yet expired, within
the meaning of the decision in
Young VS.. Philips, 2 Haw. 349.
The contract being determined by
its own terms, the seamen cannot
thenceforth be arrested under treaty
stipulstions upon the consuPs requi-
sltion.
The cause of difference giving
rise to the suit must relate to the
internal order of the vessel, and the
contending parties be exclusively of
the ships nationality to affect the
jurisdiction of the court, under the
provisions of the French Treaty.
In q suit between citizens brought
to recover wages claimed from an
American vessel, the court adhered
TO the principle which had been re-
peatedly declared by the courts of
this Kingdom, sitting as courts of
admiralty, that they would entertain
jurisdiction, where it was for the
common benefit and convenience Of
the parties interested, and when a
remission to the distant domestic
forum would be attended with great
delay and probable loss of material
testimony.
international comfy, in certain
cases, requires the courts OF this
Kingdom TO exercise jurisdiction as
q friendly act to the citizens of a
friendly nation.
II is incumbent upon the masters
or agents of whaleships, to make up,
at the expense of tue owners, the
accounts between the ship and each
officer or seaman of the crew, and
any usage TO the contrary deemed
unreasonable and would not be sus.
tanned by the court. Warren VS..
Bark benjamin Rush." 2 Haw.
468.
The court, sitting i'll admiralty,
overruled the protest of the Amerl'
can Consul and Commissioner of the
United States against the jurisdic
ton of the court in this case; ano
held, that the exercise of jurisdic'
ton is discretionary in entertaining
suits between foreigners, but in 6
case of special necessity, to prevent
a failure of justice, the duty is i'm
posed to exercise the jurisdiction.
Distinction drawn Gas TO the
necessity of exercising jurisdiction)
between engagements entered int
and to be terminated within this
Kingdom, and those made at {
foreign port for cruise to end a
the same port.
The provisions of the 21st article
of the French treaty do not lesser
the jurisdiction of the courts in ad
Indicating upon contracts for ma
riners' wages, according to the gen
eral principles of the Maritime Law
affecting such contracts.
Although the JurlSulcIlOn .
crimes and misdemeanors has beef
. yielded, to certain extent, by tn
treaty with France; still, the cas-
of mariners wages, arising from
contract terminating here, does no
come within what is meant by mat
tiers of difference touching the inter
nal order of the vessel as expresses
inSthe treaty, and would not, there
fore, in such case, limit the jurisdic
ton of the court.
A demand, on the part Of tn
libellants, for settlement and pay
ment regarded as indispensable be
fsre suit brought. Warren VS.. Bar
benjamin Rush." 2 IIaw. 478.