(Wages.)

7. The detention of a vessel during the winter by stranding in the river St. Lawrence, on her voyage to Quebec, where she arrived in the succeeding spring, does not defeat the claim of the seamen to wages during the winter. The Factor, 1 Stuart, 183.

8. Seaman going into hospital for a small hurt not received in the performance of his duty, not entitled to wages after leaving the ship. The Captain Ross, 1 Stuart, 216.

9. In cases arising out of the abrupt termination of the navigation of the St. Lawrence by ice, and a succession of storms in the end of November, seamen shipped in England on a voyage to Quebec and back to a port of discharge in the United Kingdom, entitled to have provision made for their subsistence during the winter, or their transportation to an open sea-port on the Atlantic, with the payment of wages up to their arrival at such port.

The Jane, 1 Stuart, 256.

10. The master is not at liberty to discharge the crew in a foreign port without their consent; and if he do, the maritime law gives the seamen entire wages for the voyage, with the expenses of return. ibid.

11. Circumstances, as a semi-naufragium, will vest in him an authority to do so, upon proper conditions, as by providing and paying for their return passage, and their wages up to the time of their arrival at home. ibid.

12. It is for the Court to consider what would be most just and reasonable; as, whether the wages are to be continued till the arrival of the seamen in England, or to the nearest open commercial port, say Boston, or until the opening of the navigation of the St. Lawrence. ibid.

13. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, wages decreed, including the expense of board and lodging, until the opening of the navigation of the St. Lawrence. ibid.

14. Three of the promoters shipped on a voyage from Milford to Quebec and back to London, the eight remaining promoters shipped at Quebec for the return voyage; and all had signed articles accordingly. The ship came in ballast to Quebec, and after taking a cargo sailed from Quebec on her return voyage, and was wrecked in the river St. Lawrence and abandoned by the master as a total loss. Held, 1. That the seamen who shipped at Milford were entitled to

(Wages.)

wages for services on the outward voyage from Milford to Quebec, and one-half the period that the vessel remained at Quebec, notwithstanding that the outward voyage was made in ballast; 2. That the seamen who shipped at Quebec, having abandoned, were not entitled to claim wages; 3. In cases of wreck, the claim of the seamen upon the parts saved is a claim for salvage, and the quantum regulated by amount which would have been due for wages.

The Isabella, 1 Stuart, 281.

15. But see "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854" (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 183), which came into operation on the 1st of May, 1855, and by which wages are no longer to be dependent on the earning of freight. ibid, 1 Stuart, 288, note.

16. Under the 190th section of "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854," no seaman engaged for a voyage or engagement to terminate in the United Kingdom, can sue in any Court abroad for wages, unless he is discharged with such sanction as is required by the Act. The Haidee, 2 Stuart, 25.

17. Vice-Admiralty Courts have no jurisdiction over a contract for wages different from the ordinary mariner's contract. The City of Petersburg, 2 Stuart, 343.

See Jurisdiction.

18. Promovent claimed a balance due for wages and disbursements, to which the defendants pleaded a set-off for money deposited by promovent with agents of the vessel, which was lost to the owners through the absconding of one of the agents and their failure. There was no charge against him of corrupt motive or improper dealing, but the owners sought to make him responsible for the default of the agents, who had theretofore been always employed for the ship. Held, That the deposit of the money while in port with the known agents of his employer was not only justifiable, but what the master in common prudence was bound to do, and that judgment should be for him, with costs. The cases as to forfeiture of wages and the liability of masters reviewed.

The Alexander Williams, Young, 217.

19. The master of a vessel brought action for an alleged balance due him for wages and disbursements. It appeared from the evidence, though it was not alleged in the pleadings, that he had an interest in the vessel as part owner. While in command, he had been guilty of gross immorality and intemperance, evidence of which

(Wages.)

was produced at the hearing on the part of the defendants; but the immediate cause of his dismissal was dissatisfaction as to his dealing with the vessel's earnings. The matter finally resolved itself into a mere question of account, and upon an adjustment of the accounts it was Held, That judgment should be for the defendants. Semble, That the plaintiff's dismissal could not have been justified on the ground merely of immorality or intemperance. The Belle Mudge, Young, 222.

See ante, p. 127.

20. The plaintiff claimed a sum for wages up to the term of his dismissal, and a further sum under a special contract which he alleged had been made upon his entering into the service of defendant, but of which he failed to produce any evidence. The defendant paid the first sum into Court, having first tendered it to plaintiff. Held, That there should be judgment for defendant, with costs. Quare: As to the jurisdiction of the Court to inquire into the special contract if the plaintiff had brought forward any evidence in support of it, the contract, if any, having been made in England. The Peeress, Young, 265.

21. The master of The Aura, who was also a part owner, instituted proceedings in the Court of Vice-Admiralty against the ship to recover a balance of wages due him. Held, That the Court could entertain his claim, and that the fact of his being a part owner did not affect his right to recover. The plaintiff had accepted a promissory note from three of his co-owners for the amount he now claimed, the note never having been paid. Held, That this did not take away his lien upon the ship, although sold to, and paid for, by a third party, in ignorance of the debt.

The Aura, Young, 54.

22. The master of a vessel having brought an action against the owners, claiming a large balance due him for disbursements and wages, they pleaded inaccuracy in the charges, fraud, and mismanagement of the vessel, but produced no evidence in support of their charges against him. The master's accounts being very complicated were referred by the Court to competent persons, with the concurrence of both parties to the suit, and the referees, after a thorough examination, reported in favor of the master to the extent of two-thirds of his claim. To this report the owners filed numerous objections, alleging fraud, etc., as before. Held, That in the absence

(Wages.)

of direct proof of collusion or fraud on the part of the master, the report must be confirmed. Exceptional rules in the adjustment of such accounts. The James Fraser, Young, 159.

23. Two out of three promovents shipped at Bermuda, on board the ship libelled, a blockade runner, for the round voyage from Bermuda to Wilmington, North Carolina, and thence to Halifax, Nova Scotia. The remaining promovent shipped at Wilmington in room of one of the others. No ship's articles were signed, but there was evidence to show that the master had contracted to pay to each of the promovents certain specified sums, in three equal instalments. The contract was absolute as to two of the instalments, and, as to the third, there was a condition that was to be paid only if the claimant's conduct were satisfactory. Held, 1. That this was not an ordinary engagement for seamen's wages, but a special contract. The City of Petersburg, Young, 1.

24. Action by master and three seamen for their wages. The accounts produced by the master, who had also acted as ship's husband, were extremely unsatisfactory and unreliable. He claimed a balance due him of $317.80, but failed to establish his right to more than $34.80. There was nothing against the demand of the other promovents, and the amounts claimed were awarded them. The sums so recovered, being all under $40, and therefore might have been sued for before two justices of the peace or a stipendiary magistrate. Held, That the promovents should not have their costs. The Ann, Young, 104.

25. The master of a ship sought to enforce a claim in rem for wages as well as for disbursements and liabilities assessed in respect of necessaries supplied the ship, for which he made a joint note with the owner for $250, under an agreement that the note should be paid out of the earnings of the ship. This agreement was made without the consent or knowledge of the mortgagee. Held, That the master had a maritime lien for his wages as well as for disbursements actually and necessarily made and liability incurred in connection with the proper working and management of the ship, and that the limit of such liability would be to the value of the vessel and freight.

(2) That the master did not exceed his authority in borrowing money on the note for the purposes of the ship, it appearing that the sum so borrowed had been duly and properly expended for the ship. The Queen of the Isles, 3 E. C. R. 258.

(Wages.)

26. Disobedience will work a forfeiture of wages. The Coldstream, 1 Stuart, 386.

See Justification, 1, 2.

27. In the year 1887, A. sold a vessel to M. and S. under an agreement stipulating, among other things, that the vessel was to remain in the name and under the control of A. until the purchase money was fully paid, and that, in the event of the terms of the contract not being performed by the vendees, A. was entitled to take possession, and the vendees would thereupon lose all claim or title they might have to the ship or to moneys paid by them in respect of the contract. This agreement was not registered. For some time the vendees performed the terms of the agreement, but having failed to do so after a certain period, A. resumed possession of the vessel. Upon an action in rem for wages due to a seaman employed by the vendees, and which were earned during their possession of the vessel, Held, That the amount of the claim being below $200, the Exchequer Court had no jurisdiction under sec. 34 of The Inland Waters Seamen's Act.

(2) That the property in the vessel had not passed to the vendees under the agreement, and that whatever rights the seaman had in personam must be enforced against the persons who employed him and not against the vendor.

(3) That the agreement was not a bill of sale within the meaning of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 55.

(4) That if summary proceedings had been taken as provided by The Inland Waters Seamen's Act, a direction might have been made to provide for the realization of the seaman's claim against the vessel, and she might have been tied up by the Court on his showing that the vendees who employed him were then the supposed owners of the vessel, and when action was brought were insolvent within the meaning of section 34 of the said Act.

The Jessie Stewart, 3 E. C. R. 132.

28. The master of a vessel registered at the port of Winnipeg, and trading upon Lake Winnipeg had, in the years 1888, 1889 and 1890, no lien upon the vessel for wages earned by him as such

master.

(2) Even if such a lien were held to exist, there was in the years mentioned no Court in the province of Manitoba in which it could have been enforced; and it could not now be enforced under The Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 [53 & 54 Vict. (U. K.)