Court Opinion

ID: 6642624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:46:57.779655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:59:17.427672
License: Public Domain

BENEDICT, District Judge.
This case has been treated on both sides as if the crew of consul’s men were to be considered libel-lants as well as Burke, although the libel sets forth that no special services were rendered by the crew — makes no claim for compensation to them, and prays ho decree in their favor. I shall therefore consider the case as it has been treated by the advocates, and shall in the first instance dispose of the claim of the seamen by saying that the proof that they were paid in Liverpool for their services on board, a sum which they received in full of all their demands, is clear. They were intelligent men, and knew what they were about when they accepted this payment as in full, and I must hold any claim they may have had, to have been satisfied by this payment.
There remains the demand of Burke. The position of this person on board the brig, as described by himself, is somewhat anomalous, and I do not consider it clear that he can be considered to have been a passenger within the meaning of the maritime law as applied to passengers in eases of salvage.
In the case of The Hanna, 15 Law T. (N. S.) 334, it was held lw Dr. Lushington that a person very similarly situated was not a passenger nor a seaman, but a nondescript
This question, however, is immaterial in this case, as I am of the opinion that it is not in any respect a case where a salvage can be awarded to him. It will be observed that the libellant does not claim to have performed any considerable labor or incurred any personal risk or displayed any extraordinary ability, but his demand is based upon the fact, as he claims it to have been, that he assumed the extraordinary responsibility of overruling the actual master of the vessel and of putting himself at the head of the consul’s men and carrying the vessel into Liverpool without the direction and contrary to the wishes of her master. That the libellant did this is stoutly denied by the Italian master and crew; but if he did, I cannot, under the facts of this case, endorse his action to such an extent as to award him a salvage compensation therefor.
This vessel had suffered no injury from stress of weather. The allegation that she was short of provisions or water is not sustained by the proofs. Her master and crew were in good health, sufficient in number for the ordinary crew of such a vessel; and, although their method of navigation would doubtless be far from satisfactory to most American seamen, they were competent, after their fashion and in their own time, to complete their voyage. It is, therefore, not a case where the extraordinary remedy which the libellant claims to have resorted to was necessary for the salvation of the vessel. It must be a strong case, clearly proved, which would justify a court in commending, by a salvage award, the assumption of such authority and such a responsibility.
The interests of commerce, which are the foundation of the whole doctrine of salvage, require that the master of a ship, who has been intrusted by the owners to take charge of their property, and who is responsible to them for its safe return, shall continue in command, as long as there is any vessel left to be commanded. He may call salvors to his aid, but he is to be superseded while at sea only as a last resort in a case of desperate necessity. I do not say that the case *820may not arise where it might be the duty of a passenger, seaman, or any other competent person present, to overrule the master and change the destination of a vessel against his wishes, nor do I say that the due assumption of such a responsibility would not be good ground for awarding a salvage compensation. But I apprehend that a case far stronger than the present one must be made out to justify such an award, whether to a person who did or did not owe duty to the ship.
I shall therefore reject the libellant’s claim to recover a salvage award, but in so doing cannot allow to pass unnoticed a feature in the defence which I regret much to have seen. I allude to the condition of the brig’s log book as produced in court by the claimant It is clearly to be seen that this log has been tampered with by the master (who is part owner of the brig) or the mate (who is his brother), or both — parts erased — parts written in since the occurrence of the transactions purporting to be related. Such a circumstance might well justify a court in rejecting without ceremony, not only the log itself, but also the evidence of the persons who attempt to impose it upon the court, and in a different case from the present might have ensured defeat to the claimants.
In the absence of any other way of marking my disapproval of such misconduct, I shall render in this case a decree similar to one rendered by Dr. Lushington for a different reason in the salvage case of The Rosalind, 2 Mar. Law Cas. 220, and while I award no sum to the libellant as salvage, shall condemn the vessel to pay the costs of this action.