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/ssactsengr0491 and id is 1 raw text is: THE CAMBRIDGE
matter properly in evidence before me. As at present advised, I should not have
thought myself warranted to have reversed the sentence on that ground ; but, for
the reasons which I have assigned, I think that sentence is not agreeable to the
terms or to the spirit of the Act of Parliament. I, therefore, reverse it on the
grounds which I have stated ; and pronounce the slaves and vessel forfeited ; and
condemn the respondents in the penalties specified in the third and fourth sections
of the Act : but I shall not allow costs.
Note.-The decree was afterwards superseded as to the master, it being dis-
covered that, as to him, there had been some irregularity in the citation.
[243] CAMBRIDGE -(Barber). February 28, 1829.-A vessel, whose voyage
was described in the articles as to Madras and Calcutta and back to London,
deviated, under a new charter-party, from Madras by Prince of Wales' Island
to Calcutta. The deviation, though not notified, was known to the crew, who
were dissatisfied, but did not remonstrate. The mariner, who after arriving at
Calcutta, soon demanded his discharge, and refused to work, was put in irons
till the unloading was completed, and then quitted the ship : Held, 1st. Such
proposed deviation entitled him to his discharge at Madras ; and, 2ndly, his
remaining on board subsequently was not an implied consent, nor, as the vessel
was not, under the new charter party, to return direct from Calcutta to England
a virtual renewal of his engagement. The whole wages, to the time of his
quitting the ship, and costs, pronounced for ; though the Court inclined that
the mariner had acted illegally in refusing to discharge the cargo.
This was a cause of seaman's wages. The petitioner, with several others of the
crew, had quitted the vessel at Calcutta (on account of a deviation from the voyage
as laid in the ship's articles), on the 31st of January 1827, up to which time the wages
were claimed.
Lushington and Addams for the mariner.
The King's Advocate and Dodson, contra.
Judgment-Sir Christopher Robinson: This is a case of wages, which involves
in it a question of considerable importance to the reciprocal rights and duties of
owners and mariners, as to the effect of a deviation from the voyage described in
the ship's articles. But it does not appear to me that there is any blame or charge
of intentional misconduct imputable to either party: The mariner is described as
an excellent seaman, and of general good behaviour, and as acting in this particular
instance with respect and decency ; and on the part of the owners I do not see
reason to impute the resistance which has been given to his claim to any improper
motives, or to any other feelings than might have been excited by a partial estimate,
or a misunderstanding, of their exact rights. The ship sailed from London in July
1826, on a voyage to Madras, Calcutta, and from thence back to her port of discharge
in the East India Docks, as described in the ship's articles. The vessel arrived in
Madras [244] roads early in November, and landed the troops which she had carried
out ; and there entered into a new charter-party for successive voyages, and took
on board other troops, with which she sailed in the latter end of that month to the
Prince of Wales' Island, and from thence to Calcutta. The deviation consists in
the new engagements of the vessel, and in going round by Prince of Wales' Island
instead of proceeding directly to Calcutta, occasioning thereby an elongation of
distance, as it is computed, of about six hundred miles, and an extension of time of
about a month.
This is the general outline of the case. There is no material contradiction in the
evidence, though there is some difference in the statements of the pleas.
The allegation on the part of the owners, pleads that the deviation, which had
been before noticed in the summary petition, was made with the implied consent of
the mariners, inasmuch as they were conusant of the intention and did not express
any objection. It is not pretended that any communication of the extended voyage
was made to them by the master, or by his direction. On the other side, it is not
denied that the crew had some intimation of the change of the course through the
officers' servants, or by inference from the troops and stores taken on board; and
it is said the crew were greatly dissatisfied with the alteration, though they did not
object, or remonstrate, as they could have no communication with the shore at
Madras, by which -they might have sought advice or protection, and they were
E. & A. vi.-8*
2 HAGG. 243.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0491&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)