650 THE Lon , .' (1)lBtrlct. OOUrt., ..
KEEFER. KEEFER.
w: D. Pn.oTs..
. '
FebruM'Y S. 1892.)
L SBA1lBN-CONT1U.OT POBW,f.GBS-RIVBB
Where a steam·boatboui!.d frotnPittsburgbj Pa., to Louisville, Ky. pfiota ,without the written by Rev. 8t. U. S. 54520. she Is hable, uuder
IleCtion 4621, for the hil{h8sf. wages shown to have been voluntarily paid. at Pitt&burgh to any pilot for a similar voyage during the three months preceding· The of .the statute is to prevent disputes as to the agreement for wages, and ita positive provisions in favor of the seamen osnnot bedeoted by any equities in the case. , ' , ' . .
.. 8.ur....,STATUTOBY PaoVISION....,EQUITIBS.
,IaAdmiralty. LibeCby Werling and Reno against the /Iteam-boat Lnd. K:eefer for wages as, pilots. Decree for M· .,4·. Woodward, for lillehJ.nts. , O. David S. McCann, for claimant· . . : .... ,', Judge.', . ,'Th,e testimony establishes. the fact that when the aftermaking up her tOw at Economy, destination was :LoQisville. She was to leave her. tow at Cincinnati, go to Loqisville, andllring back a towoi empty ba.rgesto Pittsburgh. only change was that ,in pursuance of a telegram from Jutte& Co., the ownersotthe tow, she.took her tow, of loaded barges with: h.er to Louisville, of leaving it at Her destination aport in, thaq an adjoining state, the act of congress SectiQll. 4520 ,qfJ the Revised Statutes provides that So written or printed .agreeplent shall. be made by the master with every seaman on board, and . provides that in the absence of such a contract the, master paY,every,such seaman "the highest price or wages which shall have. been gi'ren at the port or place where such seaman was shipped, for a similar voyage, within three months next before the time ofsuQh shipping, if'such seaman shall perform sucb.voyage." No writtenor printed made w,ith either of the l.ibelants. Capt. Reno without contradiction, .that he was to be paid the highest wages that would be paid on each trip, which. is snbs,tantially what the act provides. NQ arrangement was made with Capt. Werling as to wages. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of the statutes referred to the libelants are entitled to receive the highest wages paid at the port of departure for simiJar voyages. The shows that $250 was paid to one pilot Jor: a similar voyage at. same time from Pittsburgh to .Louisville and return. In caslp $200 was paid to a pilot for a wPete .he left the,b911tand returned by rail to Pitts,burghi;his expenses baclfbeing his employera. The libelants, on the contrary, pe!f'o,rmEld; the additional service of piloting the boat back to Pittsburgh. These rates seem to have been paid without compulsion, and, while higher than the wages paid to other pilots at the time, were
THE KAROO.
651)
paid in pursuance of agreement, lilid apparently the employers desired the services of those particular pilots for reasons satisfactory to themselves. It is the duty of the court, therefore, to allow the libelants this rate of wages, and the libelants are each entitled to receive the sum of $250, as claimed in tbeir libel, with costs to be paid by the respondent. SOplething was said about the eqnities of the case by the proctors for respondent, but equities cannot affect the positive provision of the statute, the benefits of which the libelants are entitled to claim. The intention, however, of the statute, seems to be to make it to the interest of the owner of the boat to make a written or printed agreement with the seamen, in order partly to avoid just such disputes as the present one. As is said by Judge TREAT in RoUirut v. Standard, 4 Fed. Rep. 750: "Mariners are wards of the court, and as such are to be protected, not to the injury of the respondents, but to secure them their jUllt wages. It is very easy fur officers of vessels to engage marinl'rs at a fixed rate, and if they do not do so the courts must allow them the rates existing at the time of departure. " Therefore, there do not· seem to be any equities in favor of the respond.. ent. A decree will be made accordingly.
THE KAROO. J'OHNSON et ale t1. THE
KA.Mo.
(DlBtrlct Court, D. Washington, W. D. February 15, 1899.)
1.
SEAMEN'S WAGES-BRITISH VESSEL-JURISDIOTION.
A British vessel was libeled for seamen's wages at a port where tbere was no British consul. The nearest British consul had declined to interfere. Two of the libelants were American citizens. All but three of the crew were not lawfUlly bound by any contract of shipment. Bela, that the court was justified in aseuming jurisdiction of tbe case. Where seamen on a Britisb ship did not sign articles before the Brltlsb consul, but were taken aboard the vessel bv a boarding-bouse master, wbo wrote their names in the, shipping articles, after" which tbey served aboard the ship, but did not complete the voyage described in the articles, held, that tbe articles were not binding as to voyage or term or rate of wages; that the men could ltlave the vessel at any port witbout becoming desertere, and were entitled to recover on a quantum meruit for services performed. . Where it clearly appeared that sailors were inveigled 'aboard 0. ship, and comtheir will, hela, that the master coull! Ill>t fix the rate of pelle.d to serve their wages, but the court would .lix it anywhere within reaso"nable limits; and there being some evidence that f30 per month was the highest rate" at their port of sbipment at the time of shipment, and a,lso tbat their fare aboard ship was bad, held, that they sbould recover at tbe rate Of $30 per month;
S.
SAME-SHIPPING ARTICLEs:..-I!JFORMALITY-RWHTS OJ!' SAILORS.
8.
SAME-KIDNAPPED SAILORS-RATE OJ!' WAGES.
'-SAME-RtGIlTS OJ!' SEAMEN-INtlUFFIOIENT FOQD.
The evidence sbowingthat certain sailors, laWfully shipped, W!lre ill treated. aboard the vessel, and were depri,oed of proper. food and lime juice or other ant1SCOrbUtiCs,. held, tbat' it was a breach o.fthe ship's contraot, entitling the men to . leave the vessel, the negligencem,ig'ht not have been t.hat. of the muyr of the ship; but of t.he shIp-chandler who supplied her.