The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-04-01
FTITLED TO WAGES.
n1ec Hanford's Award to the
Gov. Ames' Sailor.
70 ROBBERS FOUND GUILTY.
u~rtan Creek Desperadoss VIM Go -
Volla Walia-GeoFge =. Hill JaAg.
nent Psid-Ths Blettos.

judss Hanford handed down his decis'
- Yesterday afternoon in John Pauls0n's
~ Of the schooner Gov. Ames, TO 70
nF3 damages for personal injuries re.
kved while loading lumber at Port Gam
- The decree was that the iibellant re-
Ia the amount Of wages which he would
| isss earned by completing the voyage Tor
shich he had engaged to serve. The facts
= sufficiently disclosed in Judge Ham
| frd's opinion. which II as follows:
United States district court. district OF wash
Nst1n, Northern division.
john Paulson VI. Schooner Gov. Ar1ee. etc.'
41bsl in rem. against TIE schooner Gov. Amcs,
Il John Paulso0, seaman, 70 recover oemsses
r. . personal injury suffered wnlie s.o"aug
Npgn Decree that Iibella1t recover the amouns
n wages which he would have earned oy COM
eting the voyage Tor which No nso enssSso :"
i. y. RrsrH.sr. n. for = nos,lant
JoHs ". SKARfN, for Claimant
NAsToRD, J.
From the evidences In this ease, and that
- libeliant was hired at San Francisco 20 esrvs
= N able seaman On board the schooner Gov.
/ fmee for q voyage from San Francisco to Puget
nqud. thence 10 Australia and return 70 an
hpefican port on the Pacific coast The wages
nnssacted for were to be at the rate OF ~ per
18th until the vessel should b loaded as Pu.
1mtssia, and from that time until
- termination Of the contract ct the
| - Of $50 per month. The shipping articles
nepsd By the hbsllant do not conform to the
nan!rsments OF the United States statutes, and
q insufhcient to constitute . valid contract,
~ the document In evidence serves - . memo.
nsdsm to corroborats the libsllant's testimony
: y the terms Of the verbal contract Of hiring
uisssd into between the sienegs and the mas
- -
| 6cyod on such . voyage n I have described
"a bat Il WAS contemplated that the libellant
ohoald 20 In her - an able seaman and receive
vseee = above stated. Pursuant to this con.
unst the lipellant went on board and served
hitAfully until he was injured by being struck
y heavy timber while doing his work in the
~ slowing her cargo OF iumber::which she
~ 70 carry to Australia. in consequence OF
which he vas, by the captains orders, removed
btss Marine hospital at Port Townsend. and
nsss paid the amount Of wages earned during
- time he was actually employed.
he libel charges that the injury was caused
y negligence on the part of tho oficers of the
tslssl and on this ground he claims TO Be On.
utled 70 recover compensation for IN injury
ousing permanent disability. dnd IL I'M.
Enoeessafy 10 decide whether or not there was
Dsgiigsncs on the part Of any o6iccr or msm6er
4 ~ crow; or whether the Hbellans con.
tibuted In any way to his own injury BY negii.
osaes On his part The law governing cases
saeh q this 10 well stated In the following ex.
tock from the opinion OF Judge Brown. Of tho
oDathsFn district OF New York, in the case Of
- City Of Alexandra, II Fed, $50: I'm eases
q accidents Ike the present, the provisions Of
~ maritime law applicable 70 the rights OF the
1asties are altogether different from those OF the
nunicipal Law In regard to similar accidents on
hnd By the latter. the person injured. IL
shsfxesblo with contributory negligence. would
pcovsr nothing; he would not b. entitled to
vsga while disabled, nor TO b nursed and
tndsd at bis employers charge. By the mari.
uns law the more ordinary negligence of the
ennsu. though that b the sole cause OF the &C.
easnt makes no difference In his right to be
W1sdst the ships expense and TO his wages to
- end OF the voyage And - his own negli-
0ncs does not debar him from these rights by
= maritime law, 20, conversely. these rights
- no way extended, though his hurts have
ossa BY the negligent acts OF others OF the
Aiys company. In effect the maritime Law
Aekss no account Of mere ordinary negligence
, sueh cases. More or less negligence il. in
het 10 b expected, and the rules long sstab-
lid - regards the relief to b offered are ire
Qsctivs Of such negligence, whether BY the sea-
IN or others When the owners perform all
~ can be reasonably done on their part By the
repef equipment OF the vessel for the voyage
~ the selection Of competent officers and q
uhcient crew, no reason exists In natural JUS
- Tor holding them or their vessel ans wsrabls
y the accidents TO ssamcn which happen dur
~ the voyage beyond the limits which the
nasitima law has established. s''s
Although the shipping articles signed BY the
hleiant arc detective he IL not biamable.
n maatsr cannot Be permitted 70 take advant.
90 Of his own neglect In this regard after the
Aetllsnt has been disabled in the service OF the
alp By claiming . forfeiture OF tho wages
which would have accrued II the law had been
enplisd with. The llbellant 10 by the maritime
~ entitled to tho balance Of his wages. at the
~ Of 80 per month, from the time Of the accI.
ant 10 the date OF the vessels return from
Australia to an American port, and costs.