The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-01-28
SECOND MATES
RIGHTS UPHELD
Schooner Robert Levers Must
Pay $500 for Captains
WrOngdoing.

Judge Dole yesterday rendered a de
eision in favor of nbelant in the ad
miralty suit of Paul Peterson agains
the American schooner Robert E. Lew
ers. He found that Peterson was en-
titled to $50 for his return voyage tc
the port where he shipped, and to the
sum of $500 damages and costs.
The law of the case is thus given in
the syllabus:
"A subordinate officer of ship il
unfit for his position through fncom.
lpetence or negligence, may be displaced
by the master but not disrated.
"A second mate was disrated to the
position of a common seaman and semi
to the forecastle. Held this to be ar
Iaggravatfon of damages if there was
insufficient ground for displacing him 81
9. A. Davis, E. A. C. Long and s. F.
| Chilling'Worth were proctors for libel
ant. and Castle & wilmington for
libelee.
1t was libel for damages, in which
the libelant alleged that he, being Sec
ond mate Of the libelee, was wrong
fully disrated and reduced to the
| standing of a common seaman on the
| voyage of the libelee from Port Gam
/ Die, Wash, to Honolulu. Such dam
ages were claimed as follows: $3.50 for
| the humiliation, shame and disgrace to
| which he was subjected on boarfT of
the vessel; $50 as one months wages
to which he claimed to be entitled for
failure on the part of the lfbelee TO
have previously notified him of dis
charge; and $50 for passage money for
the return of libelant to the place
where he shipped on board the vessel.
The court found it was established
that the ibelant shipped on the .Iibe1ee
on September II, 1907, for voyage
from San Francisco to Honolulu and
such other ports in the Hawaiian
Islands as the master might direct.
to Puget Sound and back to San Fran
cisco, for a term not exceeding six
months, at $50 a month wages as sec
ond mate. On October g. between six
and seven o'clock in the morning
while the libelee was off the Island of
Oahu, during the libelant's watch, the
master came on deck and, after a few
words with him. ordered him to take
his things and go forward ameag the
sailors and perform the duties of
common sailor. On the next day. upon
reaching port, the libelant left the ship
and was later discharged by the ship
ping commissioner at Honolulu, his
wages as second mate being paid up
TO that date. In connection with such
discharge the libelant and the master
signed, with other members of the
crew discharged at that time, re-
lease which the court quotes.
This is a receipt and discharge of
all claims for WAGES in respect of the
past voyage or the engagement" the
decision. says. 1.-THE engagement covers
the agreement set forth in the shipping
articles and although a seaman is not
ALWAYS bound by such a release, yet
in this case 1 see no reason for modi- |
flying or refusing to recognize this re-
lease according to its terms The claim. |
therefore, for any further wages on ac-
count of disratine is disaIlowed.
1T is recognized maritime law that /
a master has full authority for good |
reasons, of which the court is the final |
Judge, to disrate any seaman and dis |
place any subordinate officer 1t is not |
very clear from the authorities as to /
the status of an officer upon being dis |
rated. An A B sailor, upon being dis
rated, may be placed on any inferior
footing and required to do the work
at wages belonging to such position.
It is not clear that a mate may be COM
PEELED to work as a seaman upon being
The general rule is that a
seaman who is disrated is entitled to
his discharge at the next port
After thorough review of the evil
fence. with some running comment, !
he court concludes in part as follows:
'.The amer of the master toward
linn on the morning of the 9Th of Octo-
Der has all the appearance of insolence.
No occasion appears in the evidence
Why the master of the ship a that
ime should have started out to pick a
quarrel with this subordinate officer,
2sfng his superior authority to snub
linn and put him at disadvantage, to
efuse to give him any hint as to what
le required or what work he should
ttend to. and then to disrate him to
he position of a common seaman. It /
5 not to be presumed that libelant was
n ideal mariner few such are met
With: but that he was so deficient that
he disrating was justifiable does not
ppear in this case.
I'm the case of Thompson V. Busch,
3 Fed. Cases (1lo. 13,94D 1924, in which
Re mate was displaced and returned
, the United States on the ship as
assenger, the court goes fully into
case of displacing, and although the
in that case showed disloyal-
V. disrespect, almost conspiracy on !
he part of the mate against the mas
ar, but not disobedience in relation to
be navigation of the ship, yet the
ction of the lower court in sustaining
he mate against the action Of the mas
ar in displacing him, was confirmed,
he court adopting the rule laid down
I the case of ATKINS V. Burrows, in !
hitch it was decided that such an
fcer may forfeit his right to COM
land and wages, by fraudulent, un-
lithful and illegal practices; by gross
nd reoeated negligence; by incapacity {
rought on him by his own fault, to
arform his duty, or palpable want Of :
Iill in his profession
None Of these faults are made out :
Y the testimony in this case. The