Revolt

Under the Crimes Act of April 30, 1790, consists in the endeavor of the crew of a vessel, or any one or more of them, to overthrow the legitimate authority of her commander, with intent to remove him from his command, or against his command to take possession of the vessel by assuming the government and navigation of her, or By transferring obedience from the lawful commander to some other person. 5 An endeavor to excite the crew of a ship to overthrow the lawful authority and command of the master and officers of the ship. In effect, an endeavor to make a mutiny among the crew or to stir up a generar disobedience or resistance to the authority of the officers.* 1 Story. Eq. PI. §S 351-87.,See 8 Paige, 369; 6 Johns. 348; 1 Boot, 578. ■' Langdon v. Aster's Executors, 16 N. Y. 40, 39 (1857), Denio, C. J. " [Lathrop-D. Dunlop, 4 Hun, 315 (1875). ■" Beauchamp's Will, 4 -T. B. Mon. *363 (1887), Bibb, C. J. See also Gay i. Gay, 60 Iowa, 420 (1882), cases; Towne V. Weston, 133 Mass. 515 (1S82); 35 Am. Eep. 35-37, cases. « United States v. 'Kelly, U Wheat. 418 (1826), Wash- An open rebellion or mutiny; an usurpation of the authority and command of the ship, and an overthrow of that of the master or other commanding officer... Any act done with intent to accomplish such an object is an endeavor to commit a revolt.' A total refusal to perform any duty on board, until the master has yielded to some illegal demand of the crew, when it has produced de facto a compliance, or a suspension of his power of command, is a revolt."-' The act of March 3, 1835 (Rev. St. §§ 6359-60), enlarges the act of 1790, by adding distinct offenses to the "endeavor to make a revolt." These statutes do not include eveiy case of simple passive disobedience by one of the cfew, but do embrace every case of resistance to the free and lawful exercise of the master's authority, when accompanied by force, fraud, intimidation, violence, a, conspiracy among the crew, or concerted action in such resistance or disobedience by one of them. An unlawful confinement of the master is not restricted to a physical confinement of his person.*