Court Opinion

ID: 8634571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:43:05.299438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:53.234045
License: Public Domain

BLATCHEORD, District Judge.
This is a libel by a seaman to recover Ms wages and the value of certain clothing and other personal property. The libellant shipped at Boston, as cook .and steward, on the 3d of January, 1866, at $35 a month, for a voyage from Boston to Havana, and thence where the master might direct, and finally to a port of discharge in the United States, the voyage not to exceed six calendar months. He signed the proper shipping articles, containing the above particulars, at Boston. He joined the vessel on the day he shipped. She left Boston January 12th, and arrived at Havana February 2d, and left Havana again on the 1st of March. The libellant went to Havana in the vessel, discharging his duties, but he did not leave Havana in the vessel. The de-fence set up in the answer is, that the libel-lant deserted from the vessel at Havana, and thereby forfeited all his wages. This defence is, I think, proved. The clear weight of the evidence is, that the libellant left the vessel and her service at Havana on the 26th of February, not only without leave and against his duty, but with an intent not again to return to his duty. Cloutman v. Tunison [Case No. 2,907]. He never afterwards made any attempt to return to his duty. I place my decision on this ground, irrespective of the statutory forfeiture of wages insisted on under the fifth section of the act of July 20, 1790, in connection with the entries in the log book. The libellant, in fact, deserted twice; once on the 11th of February, and once on the 26th. But one desertion, the second one, is set up in the answer, and, whatever circumstances attended the first desertion, as involving the question whether or not the illness of the libellant furnished a sufficient excuse for his leaving the vessel on the first occasion. his second leaving was a plain desertion, unrelieved by any mitigating circumstances. It was not induced by any ill treatment on the part of the master and officers. The evidence of the libellant himself is whol*121ly unreliable. There are so many material contradictions between his testimony given orally at the trial, and his deposition taken de bene esse before the trial, as to show that he is entirely unworthy of credit.
As to the clothing and other articles which the libellant left on board of the vessel when he deserted, there is nothing shown to charge the vessel with liability for them, and there is no sufficient evidence that the master ever had any of them.
The libel must be dismissed.