HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0437 and id is 1 raw text is: THE JULIANA
of the ship was, as admitted by Robert Thornton at the time, for the sole pur-[501]-
pose of evading the payment of the additional duties which would be charged upon
her as an English ship in the ports and colonies of the Netherlands. The vessel
was afterwards navigated under the Netherlands East India flag to Antwerp, where
she delivered her cargo to William Ogle West, to whom it was consigned, and then
sailed in ballast for the port of London. At Gravesena, Richard Thornton came
on board, in the absence of Turner the master, directed Curtis to act as master-to
bring the ship on to London-and to report her at the Custom House as a Batavian
ship, which he accordingly did, representing himself to be the master and a Batavian
man.
An appearance was given under protest for Robert Thornton, the asserted owner
of the ship.
The Advocate of the Admiralty, in support of the protest, argued, that the Court
had no jurisdiction over this case, first, because the ship, against which the suit was
promoted, was a foreign ship, sailing under foreign colours, and belonging to a subject
of the King of the Netherlands, residing and carrying on business in a colony of that
kingdom; and that the suit had been instituted without the consent of the ambassador
or consul or other public officer of the King of the Netherlands. Secondly, because
the party promoting the suit was not a British but a Batavian subject, and had
so sworn himself to be when he reported the ship at the Custom House ; and lastly,
that he was not the mate, but the master of the vessel, and therefore incapable of
suing for his wages in the Court of Admiralty.
[502] Lushington, for the party suing, admitted, that the Court generally declined
to entertain suits for wages earned on board foreign ships, unless with th:e consent
of the representative of the nation to which the vessel might belong ; but he con-
tended that this was to be deemed a British ship-that there had been no bona fide
transfer-that she was still the property of the original British owners, who had
disguised her solely for the purpose of avoiding the payment of duties, and of facili-
tating their commerce with the Dutch colonies-that Robert Thornton was a member
of a house of trade carrying on business in London, and was still to be considered a
British subject-that the party suing was a native of England, and had never been
domiciled in any other country-that he had been hired, and had acted as mate
during the whole voyage to the East Indies and back-and that the mere circum-
stance of his having assumed the character of master from Gravesend to London
would not bar his right to sue in the Admiralty for his wages, as least until the time
of his arrival at Gravesend.
Judgment-Lord Stowell: If the fact were fully established that this vessel had
been transferred to a foreign owner, I should still hold, under the circumstances of
this case, that this Court has authority to take care of the claims of a British mariner.
It can never be allowed that the owner shall, by selling his ship in a distant part of
the world, divest the seaman of his wages earned under a contract entered into
with himself in this country. I have [503] not the slightest doubt as to the power
of the Court to enforce such a contract upon the return of the vessel to this country,
and therefore feel no hesitation in compelling the payment of the wages sued for.
The Court might certainly feel some delicacy in interfering with foreign vessels,
without the sanction of the representative of the country to which they belong,
but I do not believe that there has been in this case any sale of this ship ; I think
it was a mere colourable transfer, with a view of avoiding the heavy duties at Batavia.
I am clear, therefore, upon the point of jurisdiction on this part of the case ; and
as for the pretence that this, man has lost his right of suing for his wages as mate
on the voyage from this country to Batavia and back, because he acted in the capa-
city of master in conducting the vessel from Gravesend to London, that never can
be held a valid objection. I shall overrule the protest, with costs.
Note.-This case was no further proceeded in, the wages being immediately
paid.
[504] JULIANA -(Ogilvie). March 19, 1822.-In a divided voyage, in which
cargoes are successively taken in and delivered at different ports, and freight
thereby earned for the owners, the mariners are by the general law entitled
to their wages up to the time of arrival at each port of delivery.; and an attempt
to extinguish their right, in case of the loss of the ship on the last part of such
1560
2 DODS. 501.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0437&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)