High Court Of Admiralty, ...
The Times, 1824-02-18T00:00:00

W We some time since reprted the proceedings -aa former stae of this cause, which is one o mariners' wages.1 LorA STOxVE70L to-day gave sentence. This caue came on for the judgment of the Court on tfe admissibility'of a aummary peti. tion given in by some seamen for their wxsgs1 on account of scr. vices performed by them on boir4 the Nepfitue. Out of' tbe pro- ceeds of those parts of the ship and her materials which were saved, the ship herself having been str;nded, they claimed to be rmune- rated for their servicCs on board. TRhe petition stated, that vsome time in thelnonth of Ftbuaty, 1822, this slip beingthen in the port of 'London, and consignedorn vo3'age to Rio ceJ;n.eiro,froa thence to 1*amburgh, and back azain to the port of London, WiYliam Clark, tihe mastee and sole o*ner thereof, by: himself or his sgent, hired-;George Brown, one of the petitiorfrs, te serve tsa leanan on boaTid thecsald vessel duerin the said intended voyianrd edto pa# him for those servimcSS at .suach a rate ThatB'viiavinq 1ulbie. quentlysiehned e snaclt En the .V Mple.tode Janeiro,where she arrMed oa the 4th JUsw fetlowipg,. hating ischbarg6d.her cargo, or part of it, sid tieTeby *tred freight WA - coatiderable ttio3Ut- tat. the .blp them too1'oa board a-cargo of-ugssi =4c ooi n& paen on h- .voy Hanmburgh; that she had come within soundings ofF ttie coast of Great Britain, when, on the 29th October, a gale of wind camc ono which drove her close in upon the French coast; and that on the Ist of November she was stranded ofi the coast of Brittany. It was futther stated, that no part of the cargo could be saved; but that Brown, and the other seamen on board, immediately set to work to save what they could of the slhip. andl her tackle: and continning to do so up to the 11:h of November, they succeeled in saving her mast, part of the rigging, some spars, ana a nd cable, and other articles, whichl sold for such a sum of noney as would have sufficed to pay the wages of all the mariners wilo h,ad sailed and cdntioued in lher up to the i;th November; that be- fore Brown and the others were discharged by the master, thee did, while on board such vessel, well and truly perforn the duties of seamen were obedient to the master's commands, end not having ob- tained their wages for stuch services, thmey now claimed that this Court would order them-to be paid out.of the proceeds of those parts of the ship which had been so saved. The adnmissibilitv of this petition wvas not contested as on any point of fact in the case: on the contrary, the facts were admitted by both parties, wrho vere willing, in this stage of the matter, to take the judgment of the Court tipon the question of law-wvhether thie mariners wsere entitled to recover their wages out of the materials that had been so preservedl. Now, that they vere not so entitled, had been principally and almost exclusively contendedt, an the authority of a maxim very well known in that Court, perhaps more so thain in any other, " that freight is the mother of wages. Now the case whieh had been cited from Sidertin related to a total loss and perishment of the vessel-not to an instance in whichi an part of the vessel had been saved and the diczsnz of M1olloy, whi had been likewise referred to, regarded a similar case of total loss, and was therefore totally out of the lrinciple of the case now before the Court. The ma3im in quzestion tas certainly a favourite of the English law ; but it was to h e taken on the argument as the sole ground of a solid opposition (if that opposition could be so estinated) to the claim of dhe mariners. Now here no freight had been claimed as due; there was a forfeiture of freight, and there muSt be a forfeittire of wages, if this maxim weas to go- veiri the case. Theni maxim itself, like many others, althoughl expressed in positive language, could not be considered as enti- tlcd to the praise of muchi real or literal accuracy: for time na- tumal aid legal paTer,ts of wages were, the mariners' contract and the performance of the covenants therein stipulated: they generat- ed wages. The Lord Chief Justice Abbott, in his excellent publi- cation, had hbid it down, that the rule in respect of a forf. iture of wages being worked by a forfeiture of freight,had been fraamed as an additional security, both for the aynent ot the wages, and the safe- tyof the shrip. in order to stu?ate the zeal and attention of this class of perasns, engaged as t.ey were in a highly meritorious ser- vice. By the policy of most maritime states, payment of wages was made to depend on the snc~eseful coampletion of the voyage, as that vhich was to secur-e to the o'vnet his freight. The learned Jadge then proceeded to cite a varietg of autthorites, foreign and domestic, to thie same effect; illustrating the cases b' a coursc of argument and reasoning of Vihich our limits will not allow more than a mere outline. His Lordship quoted the work, which be designated i as a very elaborate and comprehensive compilation," of M. Jacobson, an advocate of Hamburgh who, in p. 18 of hisbook, stated, that to the general rule, that frelght was the mother of wa.es, there lay many exceptions; and of these the Court considered that which had been consideted by Dr; Adams of a ship's goingoutinballast, prooasing to get a homeward freight, being disappointed in her object, and retorn- ing as she went out, one of the strongest. It never could. be said, that in such a case the seamen were not entitled to their wages, both on the outward and the homeward voyage. A rule, therefore, fO evidently open as this (that freight is the mother of wages) to all reasonable esception, could not be considered as universally conclusive,in. the absence of every other confirmation, such as might have been expected to be found in the insttutions of nations, or in the decisiens of their tribunals; and still less so, if it wal in opposition to all reasonable principles and practice in rpspect of general utility and convenience. Tne Court then remarked, that the modern practice of all maritime states de- parted from the applicatioii of the rule where enough of the vessel was savedl to be applicable to the payruent of waees; and this was thc understanding of France, particularly in her celebrated Marine Ordinanees, promulgated in tlhe reign of Louis XIV. The same principle was to be observed in the maritidme laws of Spain, in the height of her naval power in. 1583; of HoUand, emi- hsctly the. rnaritime state of Europe; in the Ordinancs of Rotterdain; and Ukewise in the Naval Code of Denmark; (Jacobson, p. 153.) The Court had been informed on good autho. rity, but ex reltionc only, that a similar improvement of the rule obtained in America, (a country wich had of late years very suc. cessfully turned its attention to the understanding of maritime law), althouglh there, no more than iB our own books and. decisions. were there-any recorded cases in which the doctrine had been specifically. recognized. tWe are compeUed to omit all further accoint of this sentence. except that -his Lordship in% conclusiois said) Upon the groitndsbehad-stated, he,prenouncedl that ihis sunimasy petition oughttto be Sdmitted - ald that if the facts, as had beetr stated -to bilt, iferetArip5l the "tmhriners would have tsrightto suclh poftion of the iismterials that had been save4 as would satisfy their wagest.. A gentlosni sat on his Lordship s rinht 7atrd during the delivery of this sentence, We understowd hisrjo be the fonomable ASr. Jackson, orie f ise Judges of the, United St2tes of America. HIGH COURT OF ADjAIRALT-Y. TuIsnAy. FEB. 17. - TITE WVPTtTVP. a