SEAMEN'S WAGES. punishments affixed by the sea laws, or the municipal law of our country. I have, on sundry former occasions, given my opinion upon the points-when a seaman's contract for the voyage expires, and when he may leave the service of the ship. This is a summary of my decisions, as well in the case stated, as in many others, similar in circumstances.* a See the case of Edwards, vs. the ship Susan, ante page 165. * I have repeatedly found great difficulties in the way of doing justice to either party, in cases of disobedience or neglect. Sailors have so many peculiar propensities, as well vicious as venial, that it is not easy to arrive, or stop when there, at the true points of either punishment or forgiveness. To punish every fault would be endless; and would, by driving seamen from their own, to seek some other occupation, tend to lay up our ships. I could, therefore, do nothing more satisfactory to myself, than to establish some general principle, and disregard niceties in the application. Without balancing much as to degrees of fault or negligence, I have required proof of special damage, in either case. Where damage, or loss, has been sustained, I have ordered retribution; having regard to the circumstances and ability of this class of men. Where neither loss or damage has been in proof, I have overlooked the offence or neglect, where it did not require exemplary notice and punishment. Officers of ships are authorized to use correction for common faults; and can exercise compulsory means, as stimulants to duty. To fix occasional crimes, or faults, as repellants to claims under contracts, would be tantamount to superceding most agreements by mariners. The old sea laws attempted a reformation by mulcts and punishments for enumerated crimes, offences and neglects. These being obsolete in this part of their arrangement, and in some details cruel and inefficacious, are not now practised upon. There can therefore be no accurately marked line; and loss or damage must form the general *A a Thorne US. White. SEAMEN'S WAGES. Wages ordered to be paid. It appeared that cross prosecutions, for the criminal offences, were commenced before a magistrate. A receipt in full of all debts, dues, and demands was produced. The judge stated, such receipts are frequently taken, where quarrels have arisen at sea, to repel prosecutions. They are only prima facie evidence, and may be examined into-Seamen are denied their wages often, unless they sign such receipts. But this is illegal, and no such terms ought to be insisted on. rule. Included in this rule, are all deductions for loss of service, by refusal or voluntary and unnecessary neglect of duty; as well as retributions for malfeazance, misfeazance, or gross negligence. Casual misconduct may be forgiven, or retributed; but inveterate and incorrigible habits of long continuance and dangerous tendency, either entirely annul, or vacate the contract, during their existence, according to circumstances. Jackson, versus White. SEAMEN'S WAGES. A RECEIPT from the seaman, purporting to be "in full of all debts, dues and demands," was produced to repel a claim for wages. It had been made use of, to shew an adjustment of a charge for a violent and unjustifiable assault and battery, wantonly and cruelly committed. Court.-From my own observation, I can truly state that, I have too often seen advantages attempted under colour of such receipts. I am warranted both by common law authorities, and chancery decisions, relative to instruments of much greater solemnity, to say, that although such receipts are in general respectable evidence, yet they are by no means conclusive. Fraud, duress, misconception, mistake, in either party, are open to enquiry. If in the settlement of the account any such ingredients appear, or any improper practices, in obtaining the receipt are discovered, the whole matter is enquirable into, and justice must be done, notwithstanding any prima facie evidence, arising on the face of such receipts, tending to foreclose investigation. SEAMEN'S WAGES. John Whiteman, et al. mariners, versus The ship Neptune; Summerl, owner; Taylor, master. } 1806. An explanation of the principles relative to receipts given by mariners, which have been adopted by the court. COURT. THE Neptune on her return from St. Domingo for Philadelphia, put into Charleston, South Carolina, in distress. She lay there, fitting and repairing, two months and a few days. The crew, as it was alleged, and appeared by an entry in the logbook, absented themselves for more than forty-eight hours, without leave, and thereby forfeited their wages. But a short time before the vessel's sailing, and after a long absence from duty, in consequence whereof other hands had been employed in the ship's duty and outfit, they were again received on board. It did not appear, though it might have been otherwise, that any terms were made, as conditions of reinstatement under their old contractnor were the transactions at Charleston minutely investigated. On their arrival at Philadelphia, the seamen claimed full wages; and the owner refused to pay them for the time they had intermitted their services at Charleston, under an idea that they had forfeited their wages to the time of the arrival of the ship there, by desertion. But the owner offered them the alternative, of payment of the whole for the voyage, with the deduction for the time of absence at Charleston, or that they should institute a suit in the district cout, and he would abide by the deci SEAMEN'S WAGES. et al. vs. the ship Neptune. sion of that court as conclusive. The mariners took Whiteman time to consider of the proposition, and after several days agreed to it. They were paid their wages, with the deduction mentioned by the owner; and each gave a receipt in full for the balance. The clerk who paid them explained to each of them the mode of adjusting the account, and they received, and gave a discharge for the sums severally stated to be due, as the full balance, and without objection; on the contrary they generally acknowledged they had misbehaved themselves at Charleston. Notwithstanding this discharge, thus deliberately executed, the seamen now claim the wages deducted, and allege, that they had misapprehended their rights, and that the receipt was given under a mistake, as they supposed they had forfeited, their wages when in fact they had not; and if the forfeiture had been incurred at Charleston, it was done away by their being received on board again, without terms, and under the old articles. The receipt, it was said, did not bar their recovery; and decisions of this court were cited to shew that discharges thus given, were only prima facie evidence of payment. If fraud or mistake could be shewn, the whole demand was open for investigation. Several cases were cited, to shew the latitude allowed for such enquiries. 1 Powell, on Contracts, 144, and two cases in Peere Wms. The general principles stated have been rules of decision, in the court, for many years. But every cause must be governed by circumstances peculiar to itself, where these are strong enough to warrant an exception. I abide by the general principles so frequently tested and established, seeing no reason |