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/ssactsengr0501 and id is 1 raw text is: TWO PIRATICAL GUNBOATS
bread had not been good, it would not have justified such behaviour, as it was his
duty, as a seaman, to work as long as he remained on board the ship. It is said,
however, that he had returned to his duty on the 24th, and was permitted to work,
which implied a for-[405]-giveness of his former disobedience. That would be an
indulgent interpretation of his behaviour ; but it is unnecessary to consider strictly
the effect of it, as the following entry on the 25th describes a much more violent and
contumacious act of disobedience, on quitting the vessel in defiance of the master,
and with these opprobrious expressions :- There, d-n you; we have now done
you. These words import malice and resentment, and imply that he thought he
had done some injury to the master. Could anything be more inconsistent with
the duty of obedience and faithful service than such conduct ? It is not pretended
that he ever returned to his duty, or that there was any reconciliation or remission
of this behaviour.
But it is said that the mariner entered on board H.M.S. Beagle within
twenty-four hours after leaving the merchant vessel, and that such entry will bring
him within the protection of the 2 G. III, c. 36, s. 13, which provides, that entry
on board a King's ship shall not be deemed a forfeiture of wages. In order to bring
the case within the benefit of this clause, it is contended that a bonafide leaving the
ship with the intention of entering was equivalent to entry, and that the articles of
the merchant vessel stipulated in effect, that mere absence for less than twenty-four
hours should not be deemed desertion. Such a clause, I conceive, relates to occa-
sional absences, which are frequent in the carelessness, idleness, and intemperance
in which sailors indulge in port ; but it cannot be extended to such a wilful denial
of authority and refusal of duty, as is described in this entry of the log ; and as to
the claim of twenty-four hours, to take off the consequences of such wilful insub-
ordination, by a [406] subsequent entry on board a King's ship, it is quite incon-
sistent with any reasonable construction of such a privilege. I could assent to the
proposition, that a bonafide declaration of an intention to enter might be considered
as entry for some purposes, as if a mariner was prevented from entering by the act
of his master ; but the bona fides is the main part of that proposition which cannot
be applied to such conduct as this. It cannot be imagined, that any privilege
conferred upon a man for entering into the King's service should be intended to
encourage him to defy his master, and commit all possible acts of disobedience under
the cover of a subsequent entry. Such conduct is not a bona fide entering into
another service, which ought to be made without prejudice to his duty and service
to his former master. To suppose that a man should have twenty-four hours to
put a colour on such misconduct, by which the vessel might even be lost in the mean-
time, is quite inconsistent with the obligation of faithful service contracted to his
former ship; and I cannot accede to such a proposition. In what was done the
next day, when the lieutenant of the Beagle went for this man's clothes, and
returned without them, that officer seems to have acquiesced in some degree in the
construction put on the act of desertion by the master, who at least appears to have
acted consistently from the first in his opinion of the man's misconduct. Looking
to the effect of the acts now proved to have been committed, and not afterwards
discharged by subsequent reconciliation and forgiveness, I think the mariner is not
entitled to wages for a service so terminated by his own misconduct; and I dismiss
the suit.
[407] Two PIRATICAL GUNBOATS. July 6, 1832.-Bounties for the capture of
pirates, made by boats detached from a King's ship, at a distance of' some
miles from the ship, but not out of signal distance, are distributable among the
whole ship's company.
This was a question relative to the distribution of bounties on the capture of
pirate vessels,-whether the bounties enured to the whole ship's company, or only
to the actual captors ?
The King's Advoate and Dodson for Capt. Pellew and the officers and men of
the Revolutionnaire.
Phillimore and Addams for the actual captors.
Judgment-Sir Christopher Robinson : This is a question respecting the distribu-
tion of bounty-money given by Act of Parliament for the destruction of pirates;
and it is simply this, whether, the capture being effected by two boats' companies
2 HAGG. 405.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0501&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)