The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-08-26
THE BRITISH CONSUL.
United States Court Cannot In
terfere With His Ruling.
JUDGE HANFoRD's OPINION.
An Employers LiabiIity--Defendant I'm
. Divorce Suit to Answer Ques-
lions Under Oath.
JUDGE HAnFoRD's OPINION.

The suit brought by Bernard Hoeh and other
sailors serving on the British vessel New City to
libel Der for their wages was dismissed yester-
day By Judge Hanford In his decision the
court held that the matter had been decided by
the British vice-consul, and that his court had
no night TO interfere with that decision. His
opinion was as follows:
This ID suit against British vessel by men,
bers Of her crew, to recover wages claimed for
aery,ees On voyage from Philadelphia to ia
pan. thence 10 Whatcom, via Port Townsend, in
thisstse The term OF service for which the
iibeans contractei, ne appears by the shipping
ARTICLES has not expired, and the vessel has not
reached port a. which the libeIants can by the
term Of said articles claim their discharge
From the evidence taken infer that during
tbsr service In this vessel the libelants have en-
dured the usual hardships OF a sailor life and
here Is evidence of offenses against some of
f1em having been committed by officers of the
vessel, meriting the punishment prescribed
therefor BY Brltishlaw. But If were called upon
70 decide whether these men should be allowed
70 cancel their contract and claim their wages
on account OF abusive treatment, am bound to
say that the case. as made by all the evidence,
Is not strong one. On arrival at Whateom the
iibelants claimed that they were entitled TO be
discharged aud demanded their wages, viii b de-
Thereupon they refused TO work until they
could have decision from the British consul
of the question AZ 70 their right TO be dis
charged. The fact is clearly established and ad-
from the mate to turn to, but as to what oc-
Cured Immediately afterwards there is
conflict In the evidence. They were
On On their ds to tine es es . ssds1 ass
captain ordered them to leave the ship. and that
they did 90 after a short interval and afterwards
returned during the absence of the captain
The evidence in behalf of the claimant is 10
the effect that the captain did not order the men
70 go ashore or consent TO their gong. but on
the contrary that his command was to get out
Of the forecastle and go to work.
The evidence does not make out q strong or
clear case in favor of the libelants as To any
claim possible for them TO assert, and I should
favor, even if the case were free from complied
lions created by efforts to have the differences
between the parties adjusted by other competent
authority before bringing the matter into this
court But after leaving the vessel the libelants
with the assistance OF attorneys appealed to the
Bntish vice consul residing at Port Townsend,
N oficer whose right to adjudicate the CUES
lions ct issue is at least equal to the right OF
this court to do so. And after making as full
aninyestgation as he deemed to be necessary
the consul refused to order payment to the libel
snia Of their wages, basing his decision upon
the facts shown by the shipping articles and the
ex parte statements OF the parties complaining.
This court has the power to issue process and
erant hearing upon complaint against foreign
vessels found within this state, but in exercis-
ing It's jurisdiction 1t proceeds upon the idea
fhat comfy towards the nation to which the yes
e. belongs requires IT. The object in each case
y to prevent failure OF justice, and ii will not
oieiously interfere In any case after fair hear
ing and decision of the matter in controversy
bas been given by an authorized agent of the
government of the country to which the vessel
belongs, as In this case. On this ground
iecree will be entered dismissing the libel,
Ind also the intervening libel of George Nc
see. The intervening ibelant claims that he is
entitled TO be discharged on account OF III
health, by which he 10 disabled, but the vice
'onsul refused to pronounce in his favor for the
reason that he had failed to apply for such re-
lief as he could lawfully demand under his con-
ract. IL In fact he were so disabled. In the case
II Craigend, ~ Federal reporter 49, cited by the
proctor Tor the libelant, there had been no in
Iestigatfon or decision by the vice consul, and
ne jurisdiction OF the court or propriety of ex-
'rcising IL In that instance was not challenged,
therefore cannot regard my decision in that
;ase as precedent TO effect the decision in this