Court Opinion

ID: 9300948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:07:21.932693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:40.989524
License: Public Domain

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.
It is unnecessary to give any opinion as to the original contract to go from Philadelphia to Hayti, which, being prohibited by the laws of the United States, seems to be relied upon by the captain, as a reason for not paying the wages claimed by the libellant. That contract was put an end to at Philadelphia, if the statement made by the libellant be true, and if not so, still it was not unlawful for the libellant to enter on board this vessel at Hayti, as a mariner, on a voyage to Philadelphia. The question is, did he forfeit his right to wages, by desertion, before the voyage was finished? The affirmative of this fact is stated by one witness, positively, and another speaks only of his going on shore, but does not represent it as a desertion; nor does he know whether he returned again or not Two other witnesses prove that he came on board at Philadelphia, did work by orders of the mate, and one proves that the captain promised to pay him his wages. It does not appear that the captain made any entry on his log-book, that the libellant had deserted or left the vessel without leave; and as a good cause should be assigned and proved for not paying his wages, we must, upon the evidence in the cause, say that the libellant is entitled to recover them.
The sentence below must be affirmed, and the clerk is to ascertain the wages due, con-formably to the agreement of the parties.