Shanghai, 15th October, 1886.
Before Genenat R. Kennepy, U.S. Consul-General, O. S. Kxtis v. S. R. Tisperts.
This was a claim for $294.75, wage brought by the plaintiff as Firat Mate of the four-masted schooner Haroldine against the defendant us Master of this schoo: and agent for its owns his anewer to the claim, stated that, having found the plai-tiff incompetent to perform the duties of First Mate, he had disrated him and eonnd Mate's room, H reading to the p of $187.08, being wages at the rate of $35 per month, with de-Auotious for clothes, ete., supplied to the plaintiff.
Pho ship's Articles were put in evidence, from which it appoated that the plaintiff had been shipped at $50 " month, 0. 8. Exuis, Plaintiff, sworn, stated Hint he wont inboard the Guroldine on the 10th Marchi, and the contract cessed v the 9th October, He therefore for seven month $50, aking $350. He admitted owing $9675 for clothes, etc. supplied to him, and deducting this, and adding " small amount which he had spent for-the ship, his claim came to $291.75, His Hoxour intimated that as the defendant charged the plaintiff with being competent, the onus of proof would lis Ie therefore directed Cxpt. Tibbots t" mount the witness stand, S R. Tipperrs was then swe Ho anid he had shipped the plaintiff First Mate at $500 mouth, the latter stating tnt be was fully competent. The plaintiff hagen, however, by quarreling with Watchman om board, who was a very con petent man, twice quarrelled with the Whatfinger before leaving New York, snd quarrelled with the pilot, who con plained to defendant about it. ' they to anchor in the river, and through hee Jeceness or ignorance the plaintiff broke the capstan. The plaintiff lisd no control over the men, and for forty days things Kept getting worse; things which he (defuudant) ordered to be done by the plai tif not being done, The plaintiff was: quite incompetent; he only three tim tuvk the reckonings, and us they w always wrong defendant did not ask him te thou again but did the work His Honoun—Did Ellis have a certificate from any board or body authorized to give him w certificate of competency to act vs first mate?
Defendant—I have never seen one.
Did you ack him for oue?—I asked him repeatedly what al @ had been in, and for recommendations, But is it not customary for ships' master when they engage a mate to ask for a certificate?—N", not with us—the U.S. merchant servi It is customary to ask for recommendation, I took the man principally on his ow The Defendant, con! stated that after plaintiff's attention to his remissness and incompetence, he disrated him, about the 10th May. The plaintiff was sick—awffering from nervous prosiration—and defenxutsent him to the Second Mate's room—afterwards, when he was well enough, putting him to light work, Avaust Hons, a sailor belonging to the Haroldine, was then called, He said had been' twenty-seven years al could tell whether a mate was compete or not, He always did what Mr. Ellis told him, though sometimes he did not like it. Me, Ellis was very quick in ordering out the watches—nimost too quick.—answer to a somewhat leading question from the Captain the witness afterwards ated that Ir, Ellis was slow in bringing out the port watch. would take tw twen! to come, whereas if the captain was on deck they would come out in ten or twelve minutes, AuexanDeR Hewirr, cook, was called, He suid Ellis in his opinion did fairly well for the first two or two-and-a-half months; but after that he seemed to got sick.
A sailor named Knott was the next wit He considered this utterly incompetent as a first Josera Woop, a youth was then called as" witness for the defence.
He said things went went very well on board the Haroldine while Ellia was acting ne First Mate, but afterwards they wont on very badly.
The Court then adjourned till the after-consequence of the plaintiff's incompy at $23.
A. Lloxw was then recalled at the request iff. In answer toa question Ellis, he admitted that he had told somebody in Shanghai that thi went well on board the Horoldine ho was disrated.
0. 8. Bun mounted the witness stand, and denied seriatim the charges of m i competency brought against him, alleging that the Cxptain had disrated him in order to reduce his wages.
B.S. Senna, for tly Second Mate of the Havoldine, was sed the value of th been damaged or de dant at considerably 1 leged by the Captain to their worth.
His Woxour, in passing judgment, sxid—This is strictly " case in Admiralty, but as our regulations have no form of libel and er auch as the Admiralty rules in the tes Courls prescribe, the petition woud thereto, but it Master was ann. mioned on complaint made by the pla failing to adjust their difference suit was begun, And as the defend mits there is due " certain sum to plaintiff and ig willing and ready to pay the same, the action is brought in personal and not in rem, one of ring and 5 in euch contracts belongs tou d plaintiff undertook to do as First Mate of the schooner Haroldine faithfully end efficiently, and that possessed the knowledge and skill requisite thereto, and would obey all orders and directions. The defendant undertook to give him good treatment, and to pay him according to contract. Did the plaintiff possess tle necessary knowledge and skill to sct as First Mate? From the evidence I find that he did not, nor did he render the assistance to the defendant that he should huve done. On the 18th June the defendant disrated him, which, under the Jaw, ho hada right to do, as the law makes him cupreine in command of his ship. Did do so without just cause, or unnecestily,-or for the purpose of cutting down his wages? For if he did ing, by the authorities on Maritime Law, being remedial and not penal) the Court could set it aside and order payment of full wages. From the evidence I am satisfied that the defendant hud to the platutiff, the interest of shall the reduc-flow of pay hi Lhold that it begins from the date of the disrating; for until then the defendant had permitted the plaintiff to continue to act as First Mate, and while he had cause of complaint, and inefficiency was apparent to him, yet, so to speak, he condoned it. The sum of $06.75 Is admitted by plaintiff as received, consequently thi i the amount due pi 3 perty lost or destroyed' on ship-board through carelessness or incompetency of the plaintiff shall be accounted for by him, This I find to be $10, Seamen are regarded aa specially under the. protection of the Courts, and the benefit of every doubt in truction of a contract may be given they held in strict rules of at common law in proving their Iwill nct on the other hand impose all the costs on the defend: representing the owners, but adjudge the plaintiff, being in fault himeelf, to pay part thereof, "On hearing the pleadings and evidence in this Cause it is ordered and adjudged that the defendant do pay intiff the sum of $232.25; that $16 ce against plaintiff, and hi against defendant.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.