the sal.vage. It appears that his charter pr6vided that he should pay port charges, pilotage, agenCies, and commissions, the owner pro"Viding and paying for proviliJiQnl;J!at).d wagl:!S, consular, shipping, and discharging fees; and it also contained the following clause: "On account of the perishable 'natlire of the'dirgoes that this ship is intended to catry,sheisnotliU6wed to step to pick up any wreck, or in any way assist or tow anyy,eiJsel, espec,ialJs.whenJ;>y so. doing she'i$' be detained/' <For delay of the steamer 24 hours the Ci):4fteter Paid the s4ipowneratthe rate, $68, together withl28'J9r eight tons of.coal.· such a clause in the charter party amounts to a WaIver of for salVage 11 the part of this charterer, if such claim existed. He would prevent the'irendition of salvage the mercifp.l of a, ,deviation for the purposeof Saving life, and he secured to himself' lit. right action against the must be. The libel of '18 and WIth costs; in behalf of the'-vessel, and the praceMs' ofhel' sale baviIl)t'beeneaten: up in expenses, the is as to amoun,t ?f salvage to be paid by tlietrefght and,cargo.. The freIght has'1Jeen valuf'd at $494.17, and. ,"tIM', cargo Taking all. the circumstances into I ai;nof the opinion'thata suitable salvage compensation' the services. rendere(i in' tOWing in this dangerous dere·' Hct wOlit<i be $3;OQl). as there has been no appearance for the freight, the ,whole of thefl'eight, $494.17, may be awarded to the. salvors, and; deductip.g that from $3,000, leaves the sum of be pai,d' by the cargo.
(Dlstrlct,Court, N. D. New York.
October 19,1894.) in adml,rRlty courts, and dis-
Cla.ims· for wages are highly charges are not justified for tIl'lvial
was employed as mate of the the sUtiJ,rnfr of 1894. The steamer made excursiOi,l,.t;ips fr91l1' Buffalo to points on the Niagara river. The libelant ,Wail em.ployed May 8,1894; He was discharged July 15, 1894. ' . .
. Both thllt be by the claimant. but there isa dispute JIS to th.lil date when this agreement took effect. 'the steamer did not begin her regular trips 'until' :rune 9, 1894. The libelant contends that he wlUiC;entitled eW be paid tbr:.JlI.ts board for a month froJ;!1 May 8th to June9tb,,81thouglrithe crew had .:not been assembled and those that were employed were only ljDifaged in fitting the vessel out Jor the, summer's business.. The claimantiJ;lSlsts that the agreement to 90ard tbecrew commenced when the. stealIler. began' running 011 June 9. 1894.' The claimant also insists that: tbecEmtrMt'was not by the month but by the day "at the rate of $65 per month," and that the libelant is only entitled to a per diem com-
pensation for the days when he actually worked, prior to the time the steamer commenced her regular trips. The !ibelant maintains that the contract from its inception was' by the month and that the claimant had no right to discharge him except at the end of a month. Before the Idlehour commenced running, but some time after the contract was made with the libelant, he wasinfQrmed that it was a regulation of the claimant thM the officers and crew should. when on duty. dress in uniform. The libelant demurred to this at first, but afterwards consented to purchase a uniform. He now seeks to recover the sums deducted from his wages in payment ()f this uniform. The master and the mate did not agree and the mate was discharged, the master maintaining that under the terms of the agreemeJIt he could do this at any time.
Urban C. Bell, for libelant. Harry D. Williams, for claimant. COXE, District Judge. lam convinced that the claimant did not to furnish board to the libelant until theldlehour commenced her regular trips.· After the crew were assembled arrangements eould be made for boarding them together, not before. This would seem to be in accordance with custom and common sense. The daim for board prior to June 9th, is, therefore, disallowed. The contract was clearly by the month and not by the day. The proof discloses no other agreement. The court cannot consider what the claimant intended to do but only what the parties.actually did -do. The deductions for May 30 and June 2 were unauthorized. If shipowners would observe ordinary precautions and require these agreements to be in writing controversies like the present wouldseldom occur. The regulation that the crew of the Idlehour should dress in ulliform was a perfectly proper one. In fact the claimant would have been subject to censure had he attempted to run an excursion steamer manned by a crew clad in the motley garments of landsmen. It is hardly to be supposed that every item of detail like this would have been remembered at the time the original agreement was made. Although the libelant objected at the outset he subsequently agreed to the purchase of the uniform. The discharge was unauthorized. There was nothing in the libel· ant's conduct to warrant it. The claims of mariners for wages are highly favored by the courts and discharges are not justified unless for causes far graver than anything developed by this evidence. The Superior, 22 Fed. '927; The Garnet, 3 Sawy. 350, Fed. Cas. No. 5,244; The Maria, 1 Blatchf. & H. 331, Fed. Cas. No. 9,074; The ::.\ientor, 4 Mason, 84, Fed. Cas. No. 9,427. It follows that the libelant is entitled to a decree for $59.90, and costs.
TIlERI,OlIMOND. THE 1ll.HE'(PERSHAUSEN. RILEY et at T. THE RIOHMONDand THE E. HEIPERSHAUSEN et aL
(CirCuit Court ,of Appeals, Second Circuit. September 26, 1894.)
A tug going up the Hudson river with a tloo(} tide, at night, with a tow consisting of 9 tiers of canal boats, with 4 boats In most of the tiers, and making a flotilla about 1,600 feet'long, discovered a vessel half a mile ahead, lying at anchor outside the boundaries prescribed by the regulations of thel;lecretary 'of ,the treasUJ-7. ,TlI.,e tug and, her helper undertook to p.raw ,W ,the opJ>Q!llte side of the river, but the last tier of the tow was by the force of the tide betond the line of the tug, and libelants' boat, 'Which was In such tier, struck the anchored vessel, and was sunk. The anchor watch on the anchored vessel saw the flotilla approaching when some distance away, an,:!, if he l:\ad given his vessel chain, the tide would have carried her back and out of danger. He testified he attempted to let out the chain, bl.)t failed. HeM, that both the tug and anchored vessel were in fa.ult, and properly, condemned to pay libelants damages. 56, Fed. 619, affirmed.
AND ANCHORED VESSll:L-NEGLIGJIlNCE OF ANCHOR WATCHTUG AND HELPER.
Appea) from the District Court of the United States for the South' , Libel'i)y F. Riley and another against the steam tug E. Heipershausen and the steamship Richmond for collision. There was a decree for Jibelant against both veSlilels, 56 Fed. 619. The owners of the tug and steamship appeal. ,Affirmed. Owen, Gray & Sturges, for appellant the Richmond. Robert D. Benedict and Mr. Carpenter, for the Heipershausen. Alexander Cameron, for appellees. Before WALLAOE"LACOMim, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.
,ern Diswct of New York.
WA.LLA.CE, Circuit Judge. The steamship Richmond and the steam tug Heipershausen were both adjudged in fault by the district court, and, condemned to pay the libelants damages fol' the injuries inflicted upon the canal boat 'l'homas Flood and her cargo by the collision ,between the steamship and the canal boat. Both the owners of the steamship and of the tug have appealed, and each appellant assigns as,error that the vessel of the other should have been found solely in fault by the district court. The collision took place about 9 o'clock in the evening of June 10, 1892, under the following circumstances: The Heipershausen started from the East river with a tow of canal boats bound for Albany. As she proceeded up the Hudson river, other canal boats were added to the flotilla, including the libelants' canal boat, which was taken from one of the piers at Hoboken. The flotilla then consisted of 9 tiers of canal boats, with 4 boats in most of the tiers, and the Heipershausen leading, with hawsers 550 feet long attached to the outside boats in the front tier, constituting a flotilla about 1,600 feet in length. The