the protection of seamen, on long ocean voyages, where they were unaor, if obtainable, usually had no money ble to obtain medical to spend for that purpose. Upon fluch voyages sailors are shipped for many months, and even years, while upon the lakes they are rarely shipped than one or two trips, llJld the whole equipment may be changed for a dozen times in the course of the season. To say that the obligation of the ship extends to the cure of every man of these crews who happens to be taken sick or receives an injury while upon the vessel, no matter howlong the disability :rna,y continue, would be imposing a burden upon vessel owners far beyond that contemplated by the law, or required in the interests of humanity. The court will take judicial notice of the fact that marine hospitals are established at the principal lake ports for the nursing and cure of sailors, which are supported .by deductions from In view, of the fact that there is such 8 hospital here in Detroit, I think that the libelant .cannot charge the owners of this vessel . with the expenses of his mE;idical attendance and b(lard and nursing for the seven weeks following accident, and before the filing ofhis libel. He should have resorted to the, marine hospital, where he would have beEmtreated free of expense to himself and to the owners ,of :t4e ship. I think that full justice will be done him by permitting him to recover his wages for the balance of the month, the amount paid his phy&ician at Erie, and his return fare to Detroitj and for this amount he is entitled to a decree, with costs.
THE LOPEZ. 1 PmPPS
(District Court, S. D. AZabama.
ADMIRALTY-DECREE PRO CONFESSO.
April 22, 1890.)
to hear the, case ex parte, either airectly, or by reference to a commissioner to ascertaiil and report the amount due.
A decree pro confesso in admiralty is not final, and merely authorizes the court
In A.dmiralty. Libel fors'\lpplies on open account. A decree pro confesso was rendered against th13 s<lhooner, whereupon the libelant's proctor moved the court fora final decree for the sum sued for as set up in the libel, without further proof in support of the claim. Hannis Taylor, for libelant. TouLMJN,J'.,(orally.) When ·the court adjudges 8 libel to be taken pro confesao, and proceeds to' hear the cause ex parte, as provided for in admiralty rule 29, the ex parte hearing may take place at the time of the default,. or on"8 future day in court, as the court may direct. The more usual course is to refer the matter to a commissioner to heal' the parties, and make report thereon to the court. Ben. Adm.. §§449-452;. 2 Conk.
Reported by Peter J. Hamilton, Esq., of the Mobile bar.
J'EDERAL' 'R!EPORTER, vol. 43.
ot claimant, as the case may be. It is nota final decree, "siuch a;aecree as he can abide by," but the court is to "proceed to' hear the cause parte, and jlidge therein as to law and justice shall appertain." The judge may himself determine the amount to be decreediot, which is the usual practice, he refer it to the clerk or to a commissioner to ascertain and report it. ld. 183-189. The case in 11 Wall. 268, (Miller v. U. S.,) cited by libelant's proctor, was a case of seizure on' a proceeding for condemnation and forfeiture. In such cases, whether in revenue cases or admiralty suits in'rem for condemnation and forfeiture of the property seized, (as, for instance, in prize cases,) the decree of condemnation is absolute, the only question being whether the property be forfeited or not. The rule in admiralty suits on claims ex CO'l1t1'actu is different. In such cases the COurtlDuSt make some inquiry, and the sum which the plaintiff is entitled to recover, and f0t: which a final decree shall be rendered. Authorities The motibIfls denied, and it is ordered that it be referred to the clerk to ascertain'1Tomproof the sum which the libelant is entitled to recover, for . which a filial decree will be rendered.
191. The decree firo'Confesso is 'an interlocutory decree against
---,----THE BRITANNIA. THE BEACONSFIELD. CLEUGH
THE BRITANNIA. COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE V. THE BEACONSFmLD. COTTON et i1.l.· v. THE BRITANNIA et al.
Oourt, S. D. Ne:w York.
June 10, 1890.)
34 Fed. Rep. 546. For opinion in this case, together with the other findings of fact and the conclusions of law, see Rep. ()7. Robert lJerwdict, for the Britannia and the Compagnie Francaise. George A.Black, for the Beaconsfield and Cleugh. Sidney <:Jh,ubb, for Cotton .et al·.
I " '., '
, In Admiralty·.;' On appeal from.district court.
LACOMBE, J. The findings of fact herein are hereby amended by adding theret<? .the following: . 7}irtieth. From the fact that they allowed their vesselW. come into with the Beaconsfield under the circumstances specificallydetaUedjpthe foregoing findings, it must be inferred that there was negligent navigation on the part of those in charge of the Britanni .; ,Thirty-First. The conduct of those in charge of the Bell.consfield, as specifically set forth in· the foregoing findings, .does not warrant the inference that there was on their part ne3ligence contributing to produce the collision. .