9th, being Sunday, there was no delay in discharging beyond thecustomary rate, which would allow eight WOl'kingdays. .' Decree for the libelants for two days' demurrage, at the customary rate of 10 cents per ton per day, amounting to $84.
(Di3trict (Jourt, S. D. New York. December 28, 1883.)
for minor offenses, except as regulated and provided by statute. 2.
SAME-MERCHANTS' SHIPPING ACT OF GREAT BRITAIN.
In modern maritime law fines upon seamen being a forfeiture of wages, pro tanto, cll-nnot be imposed by the master by way of discipline and punishment
The merchants' shipping act of Great Britain provides that the shipping articles may contain such stipulations for fines as may be approved by the board of trade. When such approved stipulations are apart of the shipping articles signed by the seamen, fines may, be imposed accordingly by the master. '
3. SAME-SHIPPING ARTICLES. i:'luch tines, however, cannot he allowed in diminuHonof a seaman's wages except upon proof by the shipping articles that such stipulations were agreed upon. 4. SAME-SUMMA-.I PROCEEDINGS. . ' In sU/llmary actions for seamen's wages, the authority of the statute is sufficiently I leaded by a general reference to the law of Great Britain. The court is authorized by section 4597 of the Revised 8tatutes toinfiict partial forfeiture of wages for disobedience of lawful commands.
Ii SAME-CASE STATED.
Where a British seaman on a British vessel was tined by the master two dollars for foul language and quarrelsome conduct, aud afterwards, on being required to listen to the reading of the entry on the log, imposing the fine, he refused to attend or listen, and was fined two being two days' pay for the last offense, held that, in the absence of proof' of the shipping articles, the tlrst fine could not be allowed or deducted from his wages, but that the last fine should be allowed by the court for the seQ,man's disobedience of a lawful command, under section 4597 of the Hevised Statutes, as well as section 243 of the merchants' shipping act.
, In Admiralty.-
BROWN, J. This is an action for seaman's wages upon an English ship, for 45 days, from June 19 to July 26,1888. When the libelant at this port his wages for that period unpaid amounted was to $29.50, of which $25.50 has been tendered and paid into the registry of the court. The difference of $4 is a deduction by way of the master upon the seaman for alleged misconduct fines imposed durinf. +.he voyage; the 'first, a fine of $2 ,for. viblent and abusive lanthe steward iIi the hearing of the upon some conguage troversy iureference -to the food, about 12 days before the arrival of the vessel in this port. ' An entry was made in the log 0.8 follows:
H.yland et Zabriskie, for libelant. McDaniel et Souther, for claimants.
"Thomas McCormick came aft and made use of profane and abusive language to the ehief steward, also trying to provoke a quarrel by calling th6 steward 'a bald-headed son of a bitch;' for each of the above offenses he (Thomas McCormick) is liable to a fine of one dollar, which will be enforced."
The seaman was not notified of the fine or of the entry in the log until tlle day preceding the arrival of the vessel at this port. He was called to hear the entry read, when he refused to attend or to listen to it; and for this offense the further fine of two dollars was imposed by the master, and entered in the log. The libelant claims that the deduction of these fines cannot be allowed in this action, because the right to impose them is not properly pleaded nor properI;y proved. The answer, after alleging the profane, abusive, and quarrelsome conduct of the libelant, states that he was "thereupon fined by the master, as was his power and duty to do, pursuant to said shipping articles and to the laws of said kingdom." The previous part of the answer avers that the ship was a British ship, and that the libelant signed shipping articles, to which reference was made as a part of the answer. No copy of the shipping articles is annexed to the answer, nor have they been put in evidence. So far as the right to impose a fine rests upon a foreign statute, it must undoubtedly be properly pleaded, (Holmes v. Broughton, 10 Wend. 75; AndrewlJ v. Herriot, 4 Cow. 525; Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. 400, 426; Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 544;) but under the brief and somewhat informal pleadings allowed by the. rules of this· court in small causes (rules 164-175) this objeotion should not be entertained where, as in this case, the opposite party cannot possibly have been misled. The authority to impose these fines rests upon section 149, sub. 7, shipping act of Great Britain, which permits the of the shipping articles to pro"ide stipulations in regard to fines and· other larwful· punishments for inisconduct, provided these stipulations have been sanctioned by the board of trade. Such stip\llations thus sanctioned, and forming a part of the shipping articles, become obligatory upon the seamen shipping under them; hilt as these shipping articles have not been introduced in evidence, no authority for the deductions here claimed is proved. They cannot, with<;mt proof, be presumed to have existed in a giy.en Cfl,se, because the allowance of such stipulations is merely permissive, and is never obligatory. may, have part of -,the articles, or they may not. Aside .trow these stipulations, the.first fine of $2 cannot be sustained. Fines: are prq -tanto a. forfeiture of wages,and under the modern maritlI)le law, aside f..t;'om statue, a forfeiture of wages is imposed only for miscond)1ot of an aggl'avated character. By article 12 of th,e Laws of Qleron,and article 24 of the Laws of Wisby, if one seaman "give another tbe lie, a fine of four deniers" was imposed; "impud(;lI),tly contradicted the, master and gave him :the lie-, a fia6o.f eight deniers." . These small disciplinary fines have becomeob&Qlete with currency in which they were imposed,;, and
THE QUAKER OITY.
under our statutes, (section 4596,) which is, in general, similar to section 243 of the British merchants' shipping act, no forfeiture of wages is incurred by quarrelsomeness or the use of foul language. The general maritime law empowers the master by means of other punish. ments to enforce proper discipline in these respects. Both of these statutes, however, authorize a forfeiture of wages for disobedience of lawful commands, in the discretion of the court, not exceeding two days' pay by the British statute, nor more than four days' pay by the statute of this country. As the shipping articles have not been introduced in evidence, the first fine cannot be sustained; but the requirement on the twentysixth of July that the libelant attend to hear the entry in the log read, was a lawful command. Any such fines are by law required to be read to the seamen before entering the next port. Mer. Ship. Act, §§ 256,244; Rev. St. § 4597. The libelant willfully disobeyed this last lawful cQmmand, for which the further penalty of two dollars was imposed, equal to two days' pay. I have very little doubt that the'shipping articles, if produced, would show that the fines were lawfully imposed. The articles had been returned to England, and could not be obtained without some expense. Irrespective of them, the court may enforce,and in this case, I think, should enforce, a forfeiture of two days' pay for the libelant's disobedience to the lawful command to attend and hear the entry' in the log read. It is said that this court ought not to enforce fines imposed by an English statute not proved; but as the suit is''within the discretion of this court to entertain, all parties being foreign, the libelant cannot complain that the court takes judicial notice of a statute of which there is no doubt. Decree for the libelant for $27.50, and his disbursements:, without other costs.
THE QUAIOllR CITY·
. (l)iBtrlct (Jourt, 8. p. New York. January-10; , , ;
'Where a steam-tug maneuvering in a slip :rubs against or strites 8 barge moored at t.he wharf with unjustifiable force, she is chargeable with the damages properly attributable to her negligent act, though the boat struck was old and weak In dealing with old boats, however, the repairs made should be .closely scrutinized to prevent imposition, and· nothing all.owed fOl: yond those made necessa.ry by thll plpw. In this clj.8e bu,t onll-,thi:rd of the claim allowed, and costs denied. ,', ., "
In Admiralty. J. A. Hyland" for Jibela;i1t, OWelt et Gray, for claim'ants.