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/ssactsengr0470 and id is 1 raw text is: THE CASTILIA1
satisfactory: it was incumbent upon him, when before the magistrates, to have
justified his conduct by proper evidence; he might have produced witnesses in
support of his statements ; but he does no such thing: he relied solely upon a
stamped paper--[59] that is his own admission ; and it is now sworn that, when the
paper was produced below, it was not stamped ; but whether it was or not, if the
instrument were fraudulently obtained, this Court can regard it as no authority
against the justice of the case. I take the word of the magistrate most entirely :
he states, that the paper was not stamped when produced to him; and he is sup-
ported in this position by the constable. I affirm the award, and with costs.
CASTILIA -(Stewart). June 25, 1822.-A seaman, who had engaged to serve on
board a collier, from Shields to London, and back, quits the vessel at the
port of London held, that he had not incurred a forfeiture of his wages ; the
master failing to supply him with provisions.
This was a suit promoted by a mariner, late belonging to the vessel Castilia,
for the balance of his wages in a voyage from Shields to London, and back. The
vessel, with a cargo of coals, arrived at the port of London on 17th December 1819 :
soon afterwards the ice began to collect in the river, so that on the 29th it became
impracticable to work the ship, and take out her cargo. The ship's articles were
signed, agreeably to the 31 Geo. III, c. 39.
For the mariner, Phillimore.
Lushington, contra.
Judgment-Lord Stowell: This is an application to the Court by a mariner for
wages earned, as he contends, agreeably to his contract. He was hired on the 3d
December 1819, and remained with the vessel to the 11th January in the following
year, when he was compelled, as he says, with others of [60] the crew, to quit the
service of the ship, owing to a want of sufficient provisions. At the time he left the
vessel, he had been on board twelve market-days from the period of the ship's
arrival at her moorings in the port of London.
Now if.the averment of the mariner, as set forth in his act on petition, be true,
it is a sufficient justification of his desertion ; for it is clearly the rule, both in the
mercantile as well as in the naval service of Great Britain, that the seamen must be
found with provisions as long as they remain on board, and are willing to do their
duty. Different customs have prevailed in different countries upon this point. It
appears, from ancient authorities, when some maritime countries allowed a higher
rate of wages to their mariners than this country, in those times, allowed, it was
expected by the maritime law of such countries, that the seamen should find their
own means of subsistence at their own expense, and mess together upon their own
private contributions.
There has been, in this case, a custom set up, on behalf of the mariner, that by
the regulations of the port of London, the crew of a collier is bound to remain by her
but five market-days, to give time for the sale of the coals : and it is admitted by
the owners, that where seamen engage on board a vessel in the coal trade for the
run, or voyage, to London only, there is a custom as to the time of their staying on
board after the mooring of the vessel, but that the same does not in any manner
extend to seamen entering into contracts for a voyage to London and back to the
port from whence they sailed : and they further plead, that by the uniform
custom and practice of [61] the port of London, with respect to the coal trade, all
seamen entering into ship's articles, similar to those before the Court, are bound to
continue in the service of the ship until the delivery of her cargo, and the full com-
pletion of the voyage by return to the port of lading, and that, on no account what-
ever, are they to be released and discharged from their contract, nor to be entitled
to claim half wages, unless the ship alters her port of delivery. These averments
give rise to an important question, and I should be sorry to settle it upon the evidence
which is adduced in the present case. The balance of testimony before the Court
predominates against the custom asserted by the mariner ; and it seems a reasonable
thing that a ship should have a fair time to look about her for the disposal of her
cargo; and if the mariners desert her without legal grounds, be there custom or
not, they make themselves liable to punishment.
The merits of the present question, however, may be decided on the want of pro-
visions. This part of the case is sufficiently established. It is the burden of the
1 HAGG. 59.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0470&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)