Court, W. D. South CaroUna. February 5. 1891.)
INTlliRNAL REVENUE-RETAIL LIQUOR bEALER.
A practioing physician, living in the country, who, whfln he prescribes whisky for his patients, furnishes the liquor, himself, charging the usual price, without having p'aidthe special tax, is guilty of a violatio,n of Rev. 8t. U. S. § 3242, requiring payment of a special tax by all retailers of spirituous liquors.
Indictment for Carrying on the Business of Retail Liquor Dealer without having Paid the Special Tax. A. Lath/rrp, Dist. Atty., for the United States. M. F.,An8el, for defendant. SmONTON, J., (charging jury.) There is no dispute as to the main factS of'this case. The defendant, ,a practicing physician, living in the country; the habit, when he prescribes whisky for his patients, of furnishing the liquor himself, charging the usual price. He has not paid the special tax. The section (3242) of the Revised Statutes' requires lill'persons who retail spirituous liquors to pay a special tax. The chapter of which this section is a part makes two exceptions only ners who sell wine of their own growth at the place where it is made, and apqth,ecaries who use wines ,and spiritlious liquors exclusively in the prepat'ation or making up of medicines. Section 3246. No physician who haeno! paid the special tax keep on hand a supply of spiritlious liquor," imd sell it out to his patients, even if he does this in the way of prescription. An impression seems to prevail in many parts ofthedia-: trict tha:t the prescription justifiei!l the sale. This is error. The defend..; ant says thllt he did not know that he could not lawfully do this; This will D'ot'affect the question whether he has violated the section. You wilUirld himl guilty. .
January 19. 1891.)
AsS4tJLT ON BBAMAN.,...LuBILI'l'Y op, M:AllTER. ,
The master of a vessel is not liable for personal injuries inftiQt,edOl) Ilsea,mall']>Y the mate before the master could interfe.'e. . ,
, ·. " : , r ' . ' · " , .
Qna »1le1 b;y a Bllaman lIgainst the master for, personal injuries th4;l, m,aster denied the.tUlegatfonllof cruel treatment, whicb were testitled,tb by libelant anll other seamen ·onlY, There wall,no evidence of cruel treatment either before or after one tranl!al,ltfCln'mentionecl, t):lough the ,voyage was a long Ollll.·· The master, libelant. and vei8el*ere British. It appeared libelant saw a IJritish:consul at tM port .; where;:th4:l al:lltged orueltreatment occurred. bilt'IDade noeompIalDt;tbat.onarriv. lng alt):lls Jlort be saw tile con"suJ,' a,J;Jd<:ompIained of the ,mate." only;. that ill ap,]r&-.,' ',V,tous. am.t lie' clairi1ed' hill' dISCh,arg!'bjr reast>n at nothing Of' bad libelwW:ldbe dismissed;. " " , , '" ';,',
In Admiralty. _ Libel in personam for personal injuries. B. NCYl'throp, for libelant. I. N. Nathans, for respondent.
SIMONTON, J. Libelant was a cabin-boy, and afterwards acting cook, on the Topsey. He shipped at Quebec as cabin-boy, and was made cook on leaving Marseilles, on a voyage, via Cardinas and Matanzas, to Charleston. On reaching this port, he left the bark without leave, and, relying on his nonage, joined three other seamen of the same bark in a libel for wages. He now brings this libel for cruel and severe treatment while on the bark. The libel contains six articles, involving matters of complaint. The first of these (fourth in the libel) charges that during the time libelant was on board the bark the master habitually beat libelant, brutally and unmercifully, without cause or provocation. The last of these (ninth in libel) alleges that on many occasions throughout the time he served on the bark libelant was beaten, kicked,and struck with a rope's end by the master, without cause or provocation on his part. The other articles are Qfmatters which occurred in the port of Matanzas; such as throwing hot water on libelant on 16th July, 1890, llOtwithstanding that the master knew he was unwell; beating him with fists, and kicking him with heavy boots twice in one day, when he was ill in his bunk; by wakening him the next morning, jamming his bead against .the- wooden corner of his bunk, dragging him therefrom, and chasing him at a rope's end all round the deck; not only permitting, but encouraging, the mate to pour a pot of scalding coffee on libelant, and then run him around the deck, flaying his scalded flesh. 'l'he answer denies these charges in toto. The libelant produces as his witnesses, besides himself, the three seamen who joined him in the libel for wages, which has recently been heard. No other persons but these and the master have testified. The cause was delayed, expecting the return of the Topsey' and her crew to Savannah. Her loss at sea preveptsthis, and the case has gone on without further testimony. With regard to the general charges noted above, of habitual brutal and unmerciful treatment, even in its softened and modified form of beating, kicking, and striking with a rope's end on many occasions, I see no evidence in the record. Libelant himself says on this point: "Question. How long were you on that vessel? Answer. 11 months. Q. Did you have Ii nice time on board ? A. No, not very.' Q.Stlite your experience. A. The captain beat me occasionally. and ill-treated me generally. Q. Can you tell any circumstances in which you were badly treated? Yes; was scalded twice." -And so on, relating nothing but the Matanzas transactions. One of (Healy) says that he was being "beate.hetetnallyj" but in his this Kelly contradicts him. He says: "On the voyage to Cuba I never saw him lick him only in the port of Matanzasj" all-d :M;ontiero adds nothing which supports. Healy in the extravagance of his stlltements. With regard to thecQIIlplaint of treatment in Matanzas;tbere,'arethree charges: Jili1'st. That the master permitted the mate to throw a- pot of
MELLOR t1. COX.
The 8econd. complaint is that the master th;rew a bucket of hot water ('ver him· in Matanzas. Kelly says that libelant. brought a bucket of water in, the pantry half full, and the captain said: "You have not waenougb' to wash up," and he took the bucket, and threw the water ·over him. Libelant says, in reply to a question, "Was the water boiling hot?" "No, but very hot. He threw it over my neck and face." The other matters of complaint are kicking him in his berth anl;1heating him w,ith his hand. The master denies all this in toto. n is no easy matter to decide ;complaints of this kind between a master and one of his crew The ,master is responsible Jor the saMy .or:bis "hip, and for the life and health of all on board. He is at the head of a small and isolated society, composed of a rough element, requiring a hand. His authority must be maintained, and discipline of the most strict kind observed. "In case of disobedience or disorderly conduct [on the part of any of the crew] he may lawfully correct them in a reasonable manner; the English law likening his authority in this ra:spect to that of a parent over his child, or of a master over his appren· -fico or scholar." Macl. Shipp. 204. In every case courts of justice
have the right Of judging 'of the eccasion and tbl! manner of the use of thisdespbticauthority.:The difficulty in coming to a 'decision upon' such a question is greatly etlhanced' by the ,seeming' impossibility of arat a true statement facts attending it. From the'nature of their occupation, seamen acquire a strong feeling of comradeship. They are partisan toa degree, and their testimony is always controlled by the feeling that they must ,stand by each other. " The despotic power posdessed by the master intensifies this when they to testify on shore reflpecting a difference between him and one of their nUinber, and the boundary line of truth and flilsehood cannot be distinguished. We must look to extraneous circumstances in nearly every instance, and must try the testimony by remote facts. In the present case the bark had sailed from Quebec to'Marseilles, from Marseilles to Cardinas, then to Matanzas,and: thence to Charleston. There is no evidence of bad treatment between Quebec and Marseilles. The great of evidence is that :there was no bad or cruel treatment between Marseilles and CardinasandMatanzas. '.vhere is no evidence of bad treatment between Matanzas and Charleston. So if the witnesses for libelant are to be be--' lieved, the master suddenly became seized with malice towards libelant at Matanzas, and as suddenly lost it. While at Matanzas they were within reach of, and lib",ra.ntactually saw, a cotlsul more than once. nocompla:int to bim whatever of inhuman treatment, nor sought his aid in any way . When the bark reached this' port,libelant, with Kelly,' his friend,saw the consul, complained only of the mate, made no couiplaint of the master, and, although he was desirous of quittiog the ship, did not seek 'his discharge through the consul, hut preferred to quit without leave.' This seemed to have been a decisionarrived at alter he reached' this port, for when he came' here he got the a suit of clothes. In his suit for wages he does not master to explain his departure from. the bark by reason of bad treatment. 'He· elairus his dischargehyreason of his nonage. Taking these into consideration, with the fact that we are trying a case between British subjects on a British vessel, involvihg; in good measure, the discipline on these foreign ships, I am not disposed to favor the libela.nt. If the facts proved presented a case it would be otherwise; but, if every time a master punishes .ll'seaman he will be called before the courts of the first port h'eenters' to explain, excuse,or justify his act, in a short time the authority withwbich the law maritime clothes him' be vain, and the discipline: of ships wOl;lldbe ruined. Let an order be passed dismissing the libel, with costs..
CITY, OF ,WORCESTER·
(lJlstrict: OOf!,rtiD. SouthOarolina. January 16,1$91.)
AsSAULT ON SEAMEN-LIABILITY Oll' MASTER.
A libel for personaliiljnriesby a seaman against the master will be dismissed where it appears that the injuries consisted of libelant on tbehel'd with a broom-stick, causing hiIn to nave a stiJ! neck for sE\veral days; this being done as a punishment, libelant and other seamen having been suspected of stealing Ship stqre.e which 'W,ere found il1lil!elant's bunk.. ,,
I. ·N.NathO/lUJ, for l·espondent.
". SUlowroli, J. on this bark. He' sues the .m!lSter Jor striking hlmon the head. With a broomstick,.breaking it.' It seems th!lt some had beei::J.foundin Healy's bunk. InvestigMionshow,ed t4l1t boy on board . .These, two poys and M,eUor were The:'i1l1aster was ashore. OnhislEltqrnj the mate tepoJ1ed' the.matter,tohiW'j,nnd he punished all U1ree .9f the boys. ' Thisrlibelant "/Vas hit on the' head with a broomstick, lind,for four or fivena.ya :had a-siiffi neck in consequence orit.A not anU1jl.usuaJ ineansof punishment;,n01',was ishmE\Dtc\'\1el, I am not quite: sure that it waS Int,erferenceby the tlonrt ina: case of this, kind by waylDf .damages' 'lead to: un.fortunate,consequences.· ·Let respondent pay "the costs, iam!· tJ1l:ln libel. . . .,
c. It, Nirrthrop, for libel!1nt.
Libbl for, 'personal injuries·.
THE. CITY. OF
-. , .
(Cireuft' oburt;iJ.doiineetic:ut. .. .Tanuar.;y M', i891,) .
': .,· , : .. , f-·
: 4nirollo. steam-ship, valued at struek a reef, and lay In an expQsed situatiort1 liable to 'grind on and her injuries. was employen by her owners to save her"and;wasinstrilcted by them to emplbyassistance. salvors conctucte.d al,ld pplled the vessel oj! reef and in,to port for repairs a week·after.: Illia tltruclr. Her.repairs costs $35,000. Llbelant'li :8lj.uipment engaged· in tbe'aervice: ·was.: wort1i about $25,000, and 'the equiplllent.hll'ed by him was worth abol,1t 1/l0,Q(lO" '. One Df ,libelant's vessels struck on tne reefi and had to be repaired for ,'the bill of the employes oflibel· sch¢i1ule:. rates wallfl.8,525,50.A;t th« llaJIlere.tesllbelant'sbill for bis equipment,.e,xlllu.sive of his personal BefV,i!l6AwlUch ohupervisionDf. whole abo;t 1,8,!JOO. of r31,'l'83.S2
' :: .,,'