The Belvidere, 831.
| Decision Date | 25 October 1898 |
| Docket Number | 831. |
| Citation | 90 F. 106 |
| Parties | THE BELVIDERE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
Smith & Gaynor, for libelants.
Richard H. Clark, for claimant.
The libel in this case is for the recovery of wages, and extra wages for short allowance of provisions and lime juice; and so far as the libelant Julius Koleszar is concerned, also for a discharge on the ground of sickness, and consequent inability to do duty. However, Koleszar's claim for a discharge is disposed of by the admission that he refused to go to the hospital on the permit obtained for him by the master, and that he had shipped and sailed from this port on another vessel.
The specific averments of the libel are that on the day next after the vessel sailed from Rio Janeiro for Mobile, to wit on June 10, 1898, when the allowance of provisions was given out, pork, butter, and lime juice were missing, and that this occurred without exception until the 14th day of July, 1898 when the libelants were served with seven days' allowance of lime juice, and afterwards with four more days of lime juice, but that no pork or butter was served, although it is averred, the scale of provisions for the ship's crew required each of the crew to receive three-fourths of a pound of pork a day, one pound of butter a week, and three ounces of lime juice a day. The libelants also aver that they were put on short allowance of sugar on the voyage, and that the short allowance of these articles continued during the entire voyage. They aver that lime juice was served them but 11 days during the entire voyage, and that they received no pork or butter at all during the voyage, and very little sugar. How much sugar was received is not shown. They, however, state that they did receive vinegar a number of times as a substitute for lime juice, but this was received only a portion of the time. The libelants further aver in the libel that they complained of said treatment during the voyage, to the master, but the master continued said short allowance of provisions and lime juice, regardless of their complaint until they finally left the vessel to seek redress ashore in Mobile; that the master refused them their wages and discharge at this port, and also refused to pay them extra wages for short allowance of provisions and lime juice. They aver that they suffered great privations on the voyage from the loss of lime juice, that the master was negligent in not furnishing it, and that they are entitled to extra wages, in the nature of damages, for such negligence; and they demand the same, as well as their wages, and pray the court to decree the payment to them of their wages, and extra wages for the short allowance complained of.
The scale of provisions, as shown by the shipping articles in evidence, does not provide for the allowance and serving to the crew of any butter at all. It does not allow 3/4 of a pound of pork a day, as is alleged, but does allow 1 1/4 pounds a day for three days in the week. It does not provide for the issuance of any specific quantity of lime juice, as is claimed, but provides for the daily issue of lime juice and sugar, or other antiscorbutics, in any case required by the merchants' shipping act. That act provides that lime juice, with sugar, shall be served out daily, at the rate of one ounce a day, to each member of the crew, as soon as they have been at sea 10 days, and during the remainder of the voyage, except when in harbor, and there supplied with fresh vegetables. The shipping articles-- the contract-- authorize substitutes and equivalents, and the admission is that vinegar was served in place of lime juice a number of times; and the evidence shows that both sweet and Irish potatoes, which are not provided for in the scale of provisions, were frequently served; also, that molasses was served. The evidence wholly fails to show that the libelants suffered any privations-- that is, that they were made sick, or have been in any wise damaged-- by failure of the master to daily serve out to them lime juice. The master has rendered himself amenable to the law for such failure, and is perhaps subject to a fine therefor; but how have libelants been hurt? Does the fact that they did not get the lime juice as often as the law required the master to serve it to them entitle them to abandon the vessel, and demand their wages and extra wages? I think not. If they had been damaged-- had been made sick-- by the master's negligence in the matter, they might sue and recover their damages. The Rence, 46 F. 805. And...
To continue reading
Request your trial