476

debtor to be possessed of certain goods, it is no defence for the sheriff to shew a prior execution to an amount of greater value, if to that execution the sheriff also returned nulla bona; nor, if the sheriff has the proceeds of the goods in his hands, is it any defence to shew that the fi. fa., on the return of which the action is brought, was delivered at the sheriff's office, at a quarter past five o'clock on the day on which it is returnable. Towne v. Crowder, 2 C. & P. 355. [Best]

Where the rule to return a writ expires in vacation, an attachment may be moved for on the first day of the following term. Smith v. Blyth, 9 Price, 255.

If the sheriff's return be true in fact, but wrong in law, the proper course is, to move to quash the return, and not to bring an action for a false return. Giles v. Rex, 11 Price, 594.

Where the sheriff returned, that the defendant I could not be removed from his house without danger to his life, and that his illness continued until after the return of the writ; and, on that account, the custody of the defendant was relinquished: the Court, on motion for an attachment, allowed the sheriff to amend his return, upon payment of costs. Baker v. Davenport, 8 D. & R. 606.

Applications for enlarging the returns to writs, at the instance of the sheriff, made for his own benefit, will be refused, with costs. Rex v. Cooke,

1 M'Clel. & Y. 196.

Where goods taken in execution have been found, by a jury summoned by the sheriff for that purpose, not to belong to the defendant, the sheriff must make his return at his peril. Anon. 3 Law J. K.B. 174.

In an action against a sheriff for a false return to a fi. fa., the declaration alleged that on the 28th January the writ was delivered to the defendant, who, at and after the return of the said writ was sheriff: Held, although it appeared that the writ was returnable on the 12th of February, and that the defendant's shrievalty expired on the 7th of the same month, that it was immaterial to allege that the defendant was sheriff at the return of the writ, it being clear that the sheriff may make his return after he has ceased to be sheriff. Jervis v. Sidney, 3 D. & R. 483.

Nulla bona is a good return where the defendant's goods have been divested by bankruptcy. Copping. dale v. Budgen, 2 Ken. 542, s. c. 2 Burr. 814.

An action for a false return does not lie against a sheriff for returning to a fi. fa. for 3011. that he has only been able to levy 13., if the plaintiff accepts the 13., as he thereby waives his claim against the sheriff. Beynon v. Garrat, 1 C. & P. 154. [Abbott]

(C) FEES.

A sheriff, who levies under a levari facias for a crown debt, is not entitled to poundage under the 29 Eliz. c. 4. Stephens v. Rothwell, 6 B. Mo. 338, s. c. 3 B. & B. 393.

In an execution upon a judgment of non pros., the sheriff is not entitled to poundage. Anon. 2 Chit. 353. Where the sheriff retained out of the proceeds of a sale under an execution, the expenses occasioned by keeping possession of the goods, under an injunction out of Chancery: Held, that this was an indirect taking of more than the poundage allowed

by 29 Eliz. c. 4, and that he thereby incurred the penalties of that statute. Buckle v. Bewes, 3 Law J. K.B. 105, s. c. 3 B. & C. 688, s. c. 5 D. & R. 495.

Under the 43 Geo. 3. c. 46, authorizing the plaintiff to levy poundage fees, and the expenses of execution, over and above the sum recovered by the judgment; the expenses of levying are to be included. Till the period when the statutes were dated, they had reference to the first day of the session in which they were passed; and there is no statute of 29 Eliz. Rumsey v. Tufnel, 3 Law J. C.P. 259, s. c. 2 Bing. 255, s. c. 9 B. Mo. 425.

The poundage payable on debts due to the Crown, in pursuance of the 3 Geo. 1. c. 15, is only applicable to cases between party and party; therefore, where a sheriff was put to extra trouble and expense at the request of the prosecutor, in executing a writ of habere facias possessiones under an extent, he is entitled to such expenses on the taxation of costs. Capp v. Johnson, 7 B. Mo. 518.

Poundage is not payable to the clerk of the dockets, on money paid into court by the sheriff, under the 43 Geo. 3, c. 46, s. 2. Hunn v. Brine, 6 B. Mo. 124.

Since, on the taxation of costs, the Master will not allow caption fees, the sheriff's officer may maintain an action against the plaintiff's attorney for such fee, notwithstanding the provisions of the 23 Hen. 6, c. 9. Townsend v. Carpenter, 2 C. & P. 118, s. c. 1 R. & M. 314. [Abbott]

A sheriff's officer, employed in that character by the party or his attorney, may recover a compensation for his work and labour.

If an attorney employs a sheriff's officer, he is liable to pay such a compensation, and cannot refer the officer to the party in the action. Foster v. Blakelock, 4 Law J. K.B. 170, s. c. 5 B. & C. 329, s. c. 8 D. & R. 48.

The Court will interfere in a summary manner to punish a sheriff's officer for extortion, by directing him to pay back the money, and ordering him to be fined and imprisoned until the money is paid. Ex parte Radford, 1 Law J. K.B. 33.

The sheriff when selling under a writ of fi. fa. is bound at his peril to take but his reasonable extra expenses; and if he take more than is afterwards allowed in taxation, he will be compelled to pay the costs of the rule to make him refund. King v. Milne, 1 Law J. K.B. 108.

Where a sheriff, under a pretended lien for poundage, retained the surplus levied under an extent for many years, and, even after the Court had decided his claim unfounded, continued to keep the question before the Court: he was ultimately ordered to pay the amount over with interest, and the costs of that application. Rex v. Villers, 11 Price, 575.

If a sheriff part with the possession of goods, taken by him in execution, he loses his lien thereon for his poundage, and cannot afterwards retake them. Goode v. Langley, 5 Law J. K.B. 353, s. c. 7 B. & C. 25.

(D) PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE IN ACTIONS

AGAINST.

A declaration against a sheriff for a false return to a ca. sa., need not aver that the sheriff had notice from the plaintiff, that the defendant was within his

bailiwick. Dean and Chapter of Hereford v. Macknamara, 5 D. & R. 95.

In an action for a false return by a sheriff to a writ of fieri facias, the part of the allegation respecting the judgment, which sets out the term in which the judgment was recovered, may, if it be incorrect, be rejected as surplusage, for it is only the inducement to the action. Stoddart v. Palmer, 2 Law J. K.B. 204, s. c. 3 B. & C. 2, s. c. 4 D. & R. 624.

Where an action is brought against a sheriff's officer to recover penalties for extortion, under the stat. 32 Geo. 2, c. 28, time will not be given to amend the declaration, by the insertion of new counts under the 28 Hen. 8, c. 9. Wright v. Ager,

5 B. Mo. 330.

The assistant to a sheriff's officer is a competent witness in an action against the sheriff for negligently executing the writ, though the assistant actually executed the writ, and is not released. Clark v. Lucas, 1 R. & M. 32, s. c. 1 C. & P. 156. [Abbott] In an action against the sheriff, the officer who had given him security is not a competent witness for the defence, even though the officer is indemnified by the execution creditor, and does not employ the attorney. Whitehouse v. Atkinson, 3 C. & P. 344. [Tenterden]

The party who was defendant in a suit, cannot, in an action against the sheriff for a false return to a fi. fa. issued in that suit, be called as a witness for the defendant, to shew circumstances from which the jury might infer that no debt was actually due by him. Davis v. Crowder, 3 C. & P. 169. [Park]

In an action against the sheriff for taking insufficient sureties in replevin, the production of the bond, as notice to the defendants, is sufficient evidence against them, without calling the subscribing witness to prove its validity. Scott v. Waithman, 3 Stark. 168. [Abbott]

The relative situation of a sheriff and his officer is so far recognized by the Court, as to admit of a request of the latter being deemed equivalent to a request of the former, and supports an allegation of a request by the sheriff. Evans v. Sweet, 3 Law J. C.P. 264, s. c. 2 Bing. 271, s. c. 9 B. Mo. 609.

Where a paper written by the under-sheriff, in the course of his office, is given in evidence to charge the sheriff-semble, that the statement therein made as to the authority under which the sheriff acted, is to be taken as well founded, so as to render it unnecessary for the sheriff to give his authority in evidence. Haines v. Hayton, 6 Law J. K.B.

231.

Where an action was brought against a sheriff for not arresting a defendant, proof of the indorsement of the bailiff's name, by a clerk in the sheriff's office, was holden to be sufficient proof of the sheriff's authority to appoint a bailiff, without calling the officer himself. Francis v. Neave, 6 B. Mo. 120, s. c. 3 B. & B. 26.

Proof of a warrant granted by the under-sheriff, under the seal of his office, is in general presumptive evidence, that the under-sheriff has acted by the authority of the sheriff; and calls upon the latter to produce his own authority for granting the warrant, or to shew that the under-sheriff acted without authority.

Accordingly, in an action of trover against a sheriff for goods taken in execution, evidence of the

477

warrant granted by the under-sheriff under seal of his office, was held to be presumptive evidence to charge the sheriff, without proving the writ. Gibbins v. Phillips, 6 Law J. K.B. 209, s. c. 7 B. & C. 529.

In trover by the assignees of a bankrupt, for goods taken by the sheriff under an execution, it appeared that the goods were taken at or about the time of year at which the sheriffs are changed; and it was proved, that a witness, after the present cause was set down for trial, saw a form of return indorsed on the writ, which had never been returned. This form of return was signed by the defendant as sheriff: Held, to be sufficient evidence that he was the sheriff who executed the writ: and that if the writ, when produced at the trial, has his name erased, and the name of the previous sheriff substituted, it will be a question for the jury, whether that substitution was made to correct a mistake, or to defeat the plaintiff.

A declaration against a sheriff on the 8 Anne, c. 14, for taking goods seized under an execution, without first paying half a year's rent, stated, that the sheriff by virtue of, and under pretence of a certain writ of our said lord the King, before the King himself before that time sued forth, &c., took the goods &c.— the writ under which the goods were seized having issued from the Common Pleas : It was holden to be a fatal variance. Sheldon v. Whittaker, 4 Law J. K.B. 28, 4 B. & C. 657, s. c. 7 D. & R. 123, s. c. 1 R. & M. 266.

SHIP AND SHIPPING.

[See ADMIRALTY, INSURANCE, NAVIGATION LAWS, PRIZE and SALVAGE.]

(A) PROPERTY IN SHIPS.
(a) Sale.

(b) Mortgage.

(c) Forfeiture.

(d) Apparel and Appurtenances.

(B) OWNERS.

(a) Rights.
(b) Liabilities.

(C) MASTERS AND COMMANDERS. (D) SEAMEN.

(a) Contracts. (b) Wages. (c) Punishment. (d) Discharge. (E) PILOTS.

(F) PASSENGERS.

(G) CHARTER-PARTY.
(H) DEMURRAGE.
(I) FREIGHT.

(K) BILL OF LADING.
(L) LOSSES AND INJURIES.
(a) To other Vessels.
(b) Average.
(M) SHIP BROkers.

478

(A) PROPERTY IN SHIPS.
(a) Sale.

The 34 Geo. 3, c. 68, s. 15, applies to an executory contract for the sale of a ship; which therefore is void, if the agreement be not indorsed on the certificate of registry. Mortimer v. Fleming, 4 B. & C. 120, s. c. 6 D. & R. 176.

Dodds agreed to sell to Kain a ship, and signed and delivered to him an instrument describing her as copper-bolted, and containing an inventory of her stores, under which he wrote, " Sold, the withinmentioned ship to G. J. Kain,"- -"W. Dodds ;" but it did not recite the registry of the ship, or mention the price to be paid. Dodds afterwards executed the usual bill of sale, which did not state that the ship was copper-bolted.

Kain sold her with a warranty that she was copperbolted, but in fact she was not; and the vendee obtained a verdict against him for large damages.

The Court beld, that Kain could not maintain an action against the executors of Dodds, for a breach of warranty, because the first instrument was void under 34 Geo. 3, c. 68, s. 14, because it did not contain a recital of the certificate of the registry. Kain v. Old, 2 Law J. K.B. 102, s. c. 2 B. & C. 627, s. c. 4 D. & R. 52.

The owner of a ship mortgaged her, whilst on her outward voyage, to the plaintiffs. He directed the consignees at New Orleans to advance what was necessary for her; and they having learned that he had become bankrupt, and having previously made large advances for him, caused an attachment to be issued, and the ship was sold for one-fourth of her value in pursuance of an order made by the district court at Louisiana, although the judge of that court had previously ordered that six months time should be allowed for the owner's counsel to communicate with him Held, that the sale was fraudulent, and that the plaintiffs as mortgagees were entitled to recover the ship in an action of trover on her arrival in this country. Bland v. Lynam, 5 Law J. C.P. 87.

Proceeds of a ship and cargo sold abroad, and transmitted to the Admiralty registry of Englandpayment decreed. Lady Banks, 1 Hag. 306.

The master of a vessel having abandoned where there was no necessity, the cargo not being damaged nor perishable, and the ship and cargo having been sold at the instance of the captain, under an order of the Vice Admiralty at the Mauritius; the owners of the cargo brought an action against the shipowners for wrongfully selling the cargo, instead of conveying it to its port of destination, and recovered a verdict for the value of the cargo, and then brought an action for money had and received against the vendees: Held, 1st, That under such a sale the purchasers had obtained no property. 2nd, That the plaintiffs having brought an action against the owners, and recovered to the extent of the value of cargo, &c., but no judgment entered up, was no bar to their recovery against the defendants for the value of the goods bought by them, and which they sold, and received the proceeds; and lastly, that their right of action was not affected by their having made a demand of the proceeds from the Vice Admiralty Court, which had not been complied with. Morris v. Robinson, 3 B. & C. 196, s. c. 5 D. & R. 34.

A bottomry bond holder permitted to have a

priority of lien upon the proceeds of the ship, to secure the reimbursement of his advances to the crew. Kammerhevie, 1 Hag. 63.

(b) Mortgage.

By the mortgage of a ship, accruing freight passes to the mortgagee, notwithstanding 6 Geo. 4, c. 110, s. 45, which enacts, that the mortgagee shall not be deemed owner, except for the purpose of making a transfer.

The owner of a ship mortgaged her whilst at sea, and afterwards became bankrupt. The agents of the mortgagee took possession of her on her homeward voyage; and, after her arrival in port, received monies on account of freight, and paid disbursements -viz. port charges and seamen's wages, exceeding the amount of the freight received: Held, that the assignees of the bankrupt could not maintain an action for money had and received, to recover the amount of the freight from the agents of the mortgagee, they having paid a larger sum on account of charges on the ship, and which the bankrupt as owner was bound to discharge. Dean v. M'Ghie, 5 Law J. C.P. 44, s. c. 4 Bing. 45.

A person who holds a mortgage upon a ship, and who is registered as the owner, is not, on that account alone, liable for repairs done to the ship. His assent, express or implied, must be shewn. Briggs v. Wilkinson, 5 Law J. K.B. 349, s. c. 7 B. & C. 30.

(c) Forfeiture.

Goods imported in a British ship not manned and navigated according to law, are not liable to forfeiture, if the imperfect manning of the ship was a matter of uncontrollable necessity. Pelican, 2 Dods.

194.

A second seizure not barred by an abandonment of the first. Woodbridge, 1 Hag. 74.

(d) Apparel and Appurtenances. Quare-Whether the boat of a ship is comprised within the "apparel and appurtenances" thereof.

In an action of trover for "a smack, with the apparel and appurtenances thereunto belonging," the plaintiff cannot recover separately for the boat, or for sails and cordage. Shannon v. Owen, 6 Law J. K.B. 61, s. c. 1 M. & R. 392.

(B) OWNERS. (a) Rights.

The Court of Admiralty will not interfere to give possession of a ship's register to a person whose title to be considered as registered owner is subject to doubt. Frances of Leith, 2 Dods. 420.

Upon the sale of a ship, in a suit for wages, by Admiralty process issuing after the seizure of the same vessel by the sheriff under a writ of fieri facias: Held, that the claim of the sheriff to the surplus proceeds, in discharge of his execution, was good as against the late owner of the ship. Flora, 1 Hag. 298.

The Court of Admiralty has authority to arrest and detain a ship, upon the application of a partowner who dissents from her intended employment, untill security be given by the other part-owners to the full value of his share.

Objections to the immediate payment of the entire amount of the stipulation, upon the loss of the ship-overruled. Apollo, 1 Hag. 306.

A bail bond given in favour of a dissentient partowner of a vessel, contemplates only the safe return thereof, or the payment of the stipulated sum. Apollo, 1 Hag. 312.

(b) Liabilities.

The liability for the requisite equipments of a vessel depends entirely on the fact, to whom the credit was given, and not upon that of legal ownership. Baker v. Buckle, 7 B. Mo. 349.

Where a party purchases a share in a ship under a bill of sale, which is void for want of conformity with the provisions of the Registry Act, he is not liable to pay for goods supplied for her use, unless credit be given to him individually, or he has held himself out as owner, or made an express promise to pay, or received profits from the use or employ. ment of the ship. Harrington v. Fry, 3 Law J. C.P. 244, s. c. 2 Bing. 179.

Ship-owners are liable to the freighters for negligence of the captain, although the latter had entered into a charter-party, and was himself a part-owner. Leslie v. Wilson, 6 B. Mo. 415, s. c. 3 B. & B. 171. An agreement between the owner and the master of a vessel, in which the latter is made to fill an equivocal character, partly master, and partly charterer, (receiving part of the freight,) will not discharge the owner from his liability to the shipper, although the shipper have a knowledge of that agreement before he ships his goods. Colvin v. Newbery, 6 Law J. K.B. 239, s. c. 8 B. & C. 166.

To render the registered owner of a ship liable for repairs, it must be proved that they were actually performed on his credit. Legal ownership is prima facie evidence of liability, which may be rebutted by proof of the beneficial interest having been parted with, and of the legal owners having ceased to interfere with the management of the ship. Jennings v. Griffiths, 1 R. & M. 42. [Abbott]

The liability for the repairs of a vessel, primá facie, rests on the registered owner, in the absence of proof that credit has not been given to the owners; therefore a deed of defeasance, making void an absolute bill of sale, upon payment of a certain sum of money, is admissible for the defendants to shew the purposes of their ownership; the bill of sale being duly entered on the registry, without mention of the defeasance. Cor v. Reid, 1 C. & P. 602, s. c. 1 R. & M. 199. [Best]

Where one of two joint owners of a ship, by private agreement, parted with all his interest in his share to the other, to be paid for by bills at different dates, but his name remained on the register by way of collateral security for the payment of the bills: Held, that although he had never, after the agreement, interfered in the concerns or management of the ship, still he was liable for repairs done to the ship subsequent to such agreement. Dowson v. Leake, 1 D. & R. N.P.C. 52. [Abbott]

In an action against ship-owners for damage sustained by the loss of goods laden on board their ship, their liability is limited to the value of the ship and freight; and under such circumstances, the value of the ship is to be calculated at the time of the loss, and not at the time of the commencement of the voyage; and where during a voyage, part of a cargo was destroyed by accident, and consequently no freight recoverable, the owners were

479

holden not to be liable for the amount of freight, which might have been earned if the cargo had arrived in safety. Cannan v. Meaburn, 2 Law J. C.P. 60, s. c. 1 Bing. 465, s. c. 8 B. Mo. 127.

(C) MASTERS AND COMMANDERS.

The relation between the owner and commander of a vessel, as to the ordering and payment of necessaries and repairs, is exactly the same as between a master and servant generally; and consequently, the presumption of an implied authority of the commander to order repairs to be done on the credit of the owner, may be repudiated by circumstances, as where the commander promises to pay ready cash, and no mention is made of the owner's responsibility. Gordon v. Hare, 1 Law J. K.B. 70.

Where the captain of a vessel which had sustained considerable damage from bad weather, and was in a sinking state, sold the ship and cargo under the order of a Vice-Admiralty Court, and the jury, under the direction of the judge, found that the ship might have been repaired, or the goods transhipped and forwarded to the place of destination: Held that the owners were liable for his acts, though the bill of lading engaged only for conveyance, perils of the seas excepted. Nothing but extreme necessity will justify him in disposing of the cargo, and the Admiralty Court can give no authority for a sale. Cannan v. Meaburn, 1 Law J. C.P. 84, s. c. 1 Bing. 243, s. c. 8 B. Mo. 127.

The captain of a ship has no authority to sell the cargo, except in cases of absolute necessity; and therefore, where in the course of a voyage from India the ship was wrecked off the Cape of Good Hope, and some indigo, which was part of the cargo, was saved, and the same was there sold by public auction, by the authority of the captain, acting bona fide according to the best of his judgment for the benefit of all persons concerned; but the jury found that there was no absolute necessity for the sale: Held, that the purchaser at such sale acquired no title, and the indigo having been sent to this country, the original owners were held entitled to recover its value. Freeman v. the East India Company, 5 B. & A. 617.

Where the captain of a vessel delivered the cargo to the consignor's agents, and, finding that he could not procure payment of the freight in money, took a bill, it was holden, that upon the bill being dishonoured the owners of the cargo might be sued for the freight; as the agent took the bill as the best thing he could do for all parties: but if it had appeared that he might have had his money, but chose to take the bill, a different rule would have obtained. Strong v. Hart, 2 C. & P. 55. [Abbott]

By the usage of trade, it seems that the master, and not the owner, of a ship is entitled to primage; -therefore, where there was an agreement between the master and owner of a ship, not mentioning primage-it was holden, that the former was entitled to it. Charleton v. Cotesworth, 1 R. & M. 175. [Abbott]

A master of a trading vessel who had deserted his convoy, was ordered, as a punishment, to be imprisoned by the Court for one month. Kitto, 2 Dods. 57.

Rex v.

Of the continuance and termination of the master's authority. Neptune, 1 Hag. 238.

480

An hypothecation bond can only be given where money is not to be obtained on personal security.

Where several hypothecation bonds have been given, the last executed must be the first discharged. Sydney Cove, 2 Dods. 1.

(D) SEAMEN.

(a) Contract.

On an engagement to go "from London to Batavia, the East India seas or elsewhere, and until the final arrival at any port or ports in Europe:" Held, that upon the arrival of the ship at Cowes for orders, (as precisely agreed between the owners and master,) the seamen were not bound to proceed on a further voyage to Rotterdam. George Horne, 1 Hag. 370; and see Countess of Harcourt, 1 Hag. 248, post (b.) The Court of Admiralty being a court of equity, does not consider the words " binding and conclusive" (2 Geo. 2, c. 36, s. 2,) as applicable to mariners' contracts of a special nature. Minerva, 1 Hag. 357.

Obligations of a mariner's contract. Hag. 236.

Neptune, 1

An informality in the mode of hiring will not disqualify the performer of work properly done for a claim to remuneration. Jane and Matilda, 1 Hag. 193.

(b) Wages.

Limitation of the general maxim, that freight is the mother of wages. Neptune, 1 Hag. 232.

Legal power in a female sailor to earn wages in such capacity; claim substantiated against a bank. rupt estate. Jane and Matilda, 1 Hag. 187.

Effect of wages earned on board another vessel not making the same homeward voyage as the one for which the engagement had been made. Frederick, 1 Hag. 223.

Claim for a gradation of wages sustained upon the facts; there being no specific rate of hiring inserted in the articles. Porcupine, 1 Hag. 378.

A sailor, who has agreed to serve as an able seaman at certain wages, can recover no more, though he be employed on board the ship as cuddy-servant, in the absence of an express assumpsit. Dafter v. Cresswell, 2 C. & P. 161, s. c. 7 D. & R. 650.

Claim of a second mate (who succeeded to the office of chief) to the rate of wages given to chief officers upon similar voyages, established.

An alteration in the ship's articles is not absolutely necessary to support his title. Providence, 1 Hag. 391.

Where part of a vessel had been saved by the exertions of the mariners,-held, that they were entitled to the payment of their wages, as far as the fragments of the materials would form a fund, though there was no freight earned by the owners. Neptune, 1 Hag. 227.

Hypothecation of a vessel is no ground for depriving the seaman of his right to wages, for he is entitled to them as long as a single plank of the ship remains. Sidney Cove, 2 Dods. 13.

The owner of a British ship cannot, by the sale of his ship to a foreigner in a distant part of the world, divest the seaman of his wages earned under a contract, entered into with himself in this country; and the Court of Admiralty will enforce the pay

ment of wages so earned―à fortiori, if the transfer of the ship was merely colourable. Batavia, 2 Dods. 500.

By a clause in the ship's articles of a South Sea whaler, the seamen serving on board were to lose their wages if they did not return with the ship to the port of London. After serving 27 months, some of the seamen were, with the consent of the captain, exchanged into another ship for others belonging to that ship: Held, that if these seamen lost their wages under the articles, they could recover a reasonable compensation for their services, on the count for work and labour. Hillyard v. Mount, 3 C. & P. 93. [Tenterden]

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 divided voyage, by inserting a covenant in the ship's articles that they shall not be entitled to any part of their wages unless the ship returns to the last port of discharge, will not be upheld by the Court of Admiralty. Juliana, 2 Dods. 504.

Forfeiture of wages is not incurred by occasional intemperance. New Phoenix, 1 Hag. 199.

An act of disobedience by a mate may amount to a forfeiture of his property: as, where he landed with the captain at an intermediate port, and on their getting on shore refused to return with him, but remained there all night, and compelled the captain to go back to the ship in another boat;—it was holden, that this was such an act of disobedience as to warrant the captain to detain his property on board by way of forfeiture, and consequently that trover did not lie against the captain for so doing. Weatherpen v. Leadler, 8 B. Mo. 37.

Forfeiture of wages incurred by a mariner, who neglects or refuses to return to his ship, when commanded by the master, although previously absent with leave. Bulmer, 1 Hag. 163.

Resistance to a claim of seaman's wages on a plea of desertion, not sustained, upon a failure of proof by the owners as to the time of service. George, 1 Hag. 168.

A refusal, on the part of the master, to certify for the wages of his crew upon their quitting the ship, especially when coupled with equivocal expressions as to leave, is no decisive proof of a desertion. Frederick, 1 Hag. 211.

In an action for seamen's wages, brought on an agreement, containing a clause of forfeiture if they should disobey orders or neglect to do their duty: Held, that if such disobedience or neglect was the consequence of previous misconduct of the owners or captain, the seamen were still entitled to recover. Train v. Bennett, 1 M. & M. 82. [Tenterden]

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. Castilia, 1 Hag. 59.

On a contract "to Van Diemen's Land and elsewhere, and back to London :" Held, that a forfeiture of wages was not incurred by the refusal of a mariner