Seamen who have signed shipping articles for a foreign voyage on a steamship, and, in pursuance of the articles, have presented themselves for the service of the ship several times and are finally discharged, before the commencement of the voyage, in consequence of an accident to the steam pipe which renders their discharge proper, may recover compensation in rem, under section 4527 of the Revised Statutes, for the period of the voyage, not exceeding the one month specified in the statute.

Clark v. The St. Paul (1897), 77 Fed. Rep. 998.

Fishermen are seamen and, except as modified by their peculiar contracts, express or implied, are protected by the law as other seamen are, and for their wages may look to the vessel, her master, and ordinarily her owners.

The Carrier Dove, 97 Fed. Rep. 111, 38 C. C. A. 73; Rich v. Williams, id.

The fact that the master, who is part owner of a fishing vessel, charters it from his coowners for a voyage on the "quarter clear lay," and afterwards engages a crew, agreeing to give them the same share of the catch as though they had together chartered the vessel, does not render the members of the crew cocharterers, but they have all the rights of seamen, including the right to a lien on the vessel, as for wages, for the value of their share of the catch.

The Carrier Dove, 97 Fed. Rep. 111, 38 C. C A. 73; Rich v. Williams, id.

Seamen shipped for a whaling voyage who are required to perform extra labor in connection with trading ventures carried on without their previous knowledge were held to be entitled to share in the profits of the trading, in the same proportions as their lay in the catch.

Lopes v. Luce (1897), 84 Fed. Rep. 465.

Persons employed as seal hunters, after purchasing interests in the vessel from the master and giving mortgages thereon for unpaid balances, may, as against the master and other part owners, maintain a suit in rem for their wages.

White v. The M. M. Morrill (1897), 78 Fed. Rep. 509.

Persons employed as hunters for a sealing voyage, although they have purchased an interest in the vessel from the master and have agreed that half their wages might be applied in payment, are within the protection of Revised Statutes, § 4536, forbidding the assignment of seamen's wages.

White v. The M. M. Morrill, 78 Fed. Rep. 509.

Members of the crew of a fishing vessel who leave her without permission in order to carouse on shore and are in consequence left behind by the vessel, should be subjected to the loss resulting from their failure to perform duty, but a member of the crew who is left behind while trying, in the vessel's interest, to induce his associates to return, is entitled to recover his share of the catch, his expenses, and the value of his outfit carried away.

Flynn v. The Nereid, 67 Fed. Rep. 602.

Where the shipping articles provide that the members of the crew shall not be entitled to wages until return to the home port, their refusal, in a foreign port, to proceed with the voyage, no excuse for such refusal appearing, works a forfeiture of their right to wages.

The H. C. Wahlberg (1898), 87 Fed. Rep. 361; Lorentzen v. Schlehen, id.

There is no custom exempting the crew from the duty of handling cargo when it consists of ice, in the absence of an express stipulation in the shipping articles.

O'Brien v. The Cramp (1898), 84 Fed. Rep. 696.

Seamen are not justified in leaving the ship by reason of abusive words from the master, nor is their subsequent statement to him that they desire to leave the vessel, coupled with a demand for their wages, such insolence as will justify him in discharging them and claiming forfeiture of their wages. And where, in such case, he tells them they may leave, but that he will not pay their wages, they are entitled to recover, not full wages, but wages to the time of leaving.

Richards v. The Topgallant (1898), 84 Fed. Rep. 356.

Seamen are not entitled to extra wages for services rendered in unloading cargo in a harbor of refuge, in order to free the vessel from water; and a promise by the master to pay extra compensation, upon their refusal to work without it, is void.

The Potomac, 72 Fed. Rep. 535, 19 C. C. A. 151; Niagara Falls Paper
Co. v. Crouckett, id.

The Potomac, 66 Fed. Rep. 348, reversed.

A seaman who quits ship without legal cause, before expiration of time for which he shipped, is not entitled to recover as upon a quantum meruit for services rendered in part performance of his contract.

The Leiderhorn, 99 Fed. Rep. 1001.

A seaman one day refused to work on the ground of sickness, which proved to be intoxication, and the next day again refused to work,

being unable to do so in consequence of illness caused by his previous drunkenness. For these offences the master deducted from his wages four days' pay and eight days' pay, respectively, amounting in all to $14. Advised that, although section 4528, Revised Statutes, provides that a seaman is not entitled to wages for any period during which he unlawfully refuses or neglects to work when required, the circumstances stated did not amount to such unlawful refusal or neglect, and that the master had no authority to impose and collect the "fines mentioned.

Griggs, At. Gen., Sept. 20, 1898, 22 Op. 212.

The negligence of a seaman, contributing to an injury, which made it necessary to put into a port and leave him, does not debar him from recovering his full wages, which include all that would have accrued upon the completion of the voyage.

The Robert C. McQuillen, 91 Fed. Rep. 688.

Where the answer admits that wages have been earned, but claims deductions for payments on account and other offsets, the burden is on the master to show such payments.

Hogan v. The J. D. Peters, 78 Fed. Rep. 368.

Pending a suit for seamen's wages, one of the libelants, needing money, wrote to the master, offering to accept a certain sum in payment, and saying that if such sum was paid into court the suit, so far as concerned his claim, might be dismissed. The sum was accordingly paid into court, but libelant never called for it, and subsequently pressed the suit for the full amount. Held, that this conduct did not prejudice his right to recover the larger sum.

Hogan v. The J. D. Peters, 78 Fed. Rep. 368.

Conviction and imprisonment of a seaman in a foreign country for an assault on the master, committed on board ship, within the territo ial jurisdiction of such country, will bar a suit for wages.

Hindsgaul v. The Lyman D. Foster, 85 Fed. Rep. 987.

In this case the wages due at the time of the assault were paid into the hands of the American consul, who paid therefrom the costs of prosecution and turned the remainder over to the seaman. It was held that the ship was not liable for the misapplication, if there was any, of the money by the consul.

The mere fact that the master suspended seamen from duty and imprisoned them, in good faith, on suspicion of an intent to burn the vessel, is not ground for forfeiting their wages if they in fact were not guilty.

Krueger v. The John and Winthrop (1897), 84 Fed. Rep. 503.

A seaman discharged by a consul because of unusual or cruel treatment is entitled to the one month's extra wages allowed by statute, and "some reasonable discretion is to be permitted to the consular authority in determining this extra allowance in reference to actual or anticipated ill treatment and a discharge consequent thereon."

Griggs, At. Gen., Sept. 20, 1898, 22 Op. 212, 214.

The filing of a libel for wages, after the master has announced his . intention to sail for a port unauthorized by the shipping articles, and after the seamen have, in consequence, demanded their wages, is not premature, although they continue at work several hours longer, and until the vessel is about to proceed to sea.

Heinrici v. The Laura Madsen, 84 Fed. Rep. 362.

Where the owner of the ship is also the owner of the cargo, the seamen have a lien on the cargo for wages in the nature of a charge upon the freight.

Tibbol v. The Marion, 79 Fed. Rep. 104.

Where vessel and cargo are owned by the same persons and the proceeds of the vessel are insufficient, the seamen have a lien for their wages on the cargo to an amount equal to a reasonable freight

thereon.

The Marion, 88 Fed. Rep. 96.

5. RECOVERY OF DAMAGES.

$ 729.

Where a seaman, while painting a mast, fell to the deck and was injured, and it appeared that there was negligence both on his part and on that of the master, it was held that, under the rule in admiralty requiring the division of damages in proportion to the negligence of the master and servant, respectively, the seaman was entitled to recover one-half his actual damage.

Wm. Johnson & Co. v. Johansen, 86 Fed. Rep. 886.

As to personal injuries, see Natchez & N. O. Packet & Navigation Co. v.
Price, 21 C. C. A. 145.

The liability of a British ship or her owners for injuries caused to a seaman on the high seas, by neglect of the master to furnish sufficient ropes or gear, is measured by the British law, which does not give in such case an action in rem.

Peterson v. The Lamington (1898), 87 Fed. Rep. 752.

Where a boatswain is engaged, with a detail of seamen, in lowering a mast, and the mate of the ship, in assisting to do the work, causes injury to the boatswain by his negligence, the act of the mate is that of an operative, and the boatswain can not recover.

The Miami (1898), 87 Fed. Rep. 757.

The risk to a seaman of injury from perils of navigation from the negligence of fellow-servants, or from defects in tackle or other appliances, which are not obvious or discoverable by the exercise of reasonable care, is incidental to the employment and is assumed by him.

The Robert C. McQuillen, 91 Fed. Rep. 685.

See Wm. Johnson & Co. v. Johansen, 30 C. C. A. 675.

Libelants shipped as seamen on a whaling ship for a voyage not to exceed one year, and were to receive a share of the proceeds as compensation. During the year the ship became fast in the ice and was not released until some time after the end of the year. After being released, the master, against the protest of the men, went on another cruise. Held, that the detention of the ship while imprisoned in the ice and while afterwards taking up the members of the crew who had been sent on shore while she was so imprisoned was an incident to navigation in that latitude for which the ship was not liable, but that for the time occupied by the subsequent cruise, after it became the duty of the ship under the articles to return libelants to the port of discharge, she was liable to them for damages in an amount sufficient to compensate them for their loss of time.

The Belvedere, 100 Fed. Rep. 498.

6. PROVISIONS FOR CREW.

§ 730.

After the adoption by shipping articles of the statutory scale for provisions (Revised Statutes, § 4612) the master issued provisions according to a “method" of his own, whereby there was a shortage of bread. The seamen protested, and the statutory scale was professedly followed for a few days, but the seamen, being dissatisfied with the manner in which it was carried out, asked the master to return to his "method." He did so, on condition that they would "agree to be perfectly satisfied in the future and make no more complaints," and an agreement to this effect was entered on the log. Held, that the contract was void, and that the seamen might sue for the extra compensation allowed by Revised Statutes, § 4568, in cases of shortage.

Broux v. The Ivy, 62 Fed. Rep. 600.