The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1922-04-05
ADMIRALTY POINT
DECIDED BY COURT
Involves the Responsibility Of Master
Of Vessel For Abuse of His
Authority.

responsibility OF the master Of q yes
sci, growing out of libel against the
master and owners of ship, for an
alleged abuse of the masters authori-
ty at sea, was handed down by Judge
William b. Sheppard of the United
States district court yesterday.
The libel, whicn was filed in the
United States court here and heard
by that court. was by Diamond James
against Whitney and Bodden, owners,
and w. A. Cummings, as master OF
the schooner Ludlow, for compensa-
ton resulting from mistreatment re-
ceived aboard the ship while employed
az cook. He alleged that the mistreat-
ment was at the hands of the master.
The llbsllant claimed that while on
the voyage from Porto Rico to Pen
sacoia, Captain Cummings unjustly
accused him of being thief and
stealing food supplies from the store
room, and that the master abused him
and without just cause or provoca-
ton maltciously and unlawfully ar
rested libellant, put him in rusty irons
and there kept him for the period of
sixteen hours Fer this he claimed
SO, 900 damages.
Judge sheppard held that there is
q clear distinction In the admiralty
law between the liability Of the own
sr or principal as consequence OF the
tort of the agent, when the act OF the
agent was In the exercise of delegated
authority, or when the voluntary act
committed by the agent was prompt
ed by malice or other caprice. The
test Of the responsibility Of the owner
as recognized In the admiralty law, 10
whether the tort was committed in
the scope of the owners business or
authority, as distinguished from the
voluntary act Of the servant incident
to temperament, impulse or personal
equation Of the servant az when The
deed may be said to have been done
maliciously."
In regards to the alleged malicious
conduct upon the part of the master,
the court held that even If the evi-
dence supported this aspect OF the
transaction, still the owners of the
Ludlow, by weight of authority, would
not be liable, since the injured party
may look no further for responsibility .
than to him who committed the ma
licious act.
There is present, however, in this
libel, the charge that the conduct OF
the master placing the nbsllant in
irons, was nthe course of the own
er's employment, in charge OF the YES
sci at the time; unless therefore the
seaman was such provocation to JUS
tify the lawful exercise of the masters
authority, or il that authority was
abused, liability of the owners would
follow To determine that fact,
whether the master~was in the execu-
ton Of authority delegated to him, by
the nature of his employment, or
whether the alleged tort was the VOL
untary malicious act of the master,
we must turn to the testimony, which
is usual In such cases is conflicting,
and more or less unreliable"
After reviewing the testimony and
tracing the actions of both master and
the seaman in the light of the testi-
mony the court concluded that will
full disobedtence, which alone would
justify the punishment inflicted, is not
established by the preponderance of
the evidence adduced here. However,
the damage to the steward recover
able by this libel being limited to in
jury to his health or person of which
evidence shows none, the only thing
for which he may be compensated is
the discomfort Of 16 hours confinement
in the lazarette. conclude that nom
inal damages is sufficient reparation.
For this Inconvenience $160 will be
awarded; each party paying his
costs"
This decision will have a decided
effect on cases Of this nature in the
future. Some masters of vessels
could not pay even if a judgment was
rendered against them; for this rea-
son the attorney for the libellant
would attempt to get judgment
against the owners of the vessel and
not against the master. If he proved
by the testimony that the act was
done maliciously, with utter disregard
for the rights of another, in other
words, If the case was made too
Strong" the attorney might never
collect a penny. The prediction among
local lawyers is that they will have
to strike "the happy medium" and
avoid either extreme.