The W.L. White

• Decision Date: 31 October 1885
• Citation: 25 F. 503
• Parties: THE W. L. WHITE. [1] v. THE W. L. WHITE, etc. JANSEN
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

25 F. 503

THE W. L. WHITE. ^[1]

JANSEN v. THE W. L. WHITE, etc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

October 31, 1885

Alexander & Ash, for libelant.

Henry D. Hotchkiss, for claimants.

BROWN J.

The libelant shipped on board the schooner W. L. White for Havana and back, as seaman, for wages at the rate of $16 per month. He served on board from December 8, 1884, to the twenty-eighth of January, 1885, on which day, having received a hurt while in the service of the ship at Havana, he was sent to the hospital. Upon the application of the master to the United States consul at that port, the seaman was on the same day discharged, under section 4583 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by section 3 of the act of June 26 1884, c. 121, known as the 'Dingley Bill.' The consul collected at the time one month's extra wages from the ship, and the arrears of wages due the seaman, $25.73, making together $41.73.

The ship arrived in New York on the twenty-eighth of February. The expenses of the seaman for 28 days in the hospital together with his passage home, amounted to $48, to the payment of which all the arrears of wages collected, and the extra wages, were applied by the consul. On his return the seaman has libeled the schooner for his wages for the voyage up to the twenty-eighth of February, less the sum of $3.25 advanced. Prior to the recent amendment of the statute the consul had no authority to discharge a seaman abroad upon the application of the master in consequence of any hurt or injury received in the service of the vessel; and an alleged consent given by a seaman seriously sick or injured and confined ashore, was held by Judge LOWELL to be inoperative. Callon v. Williams, 2 Low. 1.

It is doubtful whether any additional authority is conferred upon consular officers by the third section of the act of June 26, 1884, known as the 'Dingley Act.' The third clause of that section declares that 'whenever a seaman is discharged by a consular officer in consequence of any injury received in the service of the vessel, such consular officer shall require the payment by the master of one month's extra wages over and above the wages due at the time of the discharge. ' By the maritime law, a seaman hurt in the service of the ship is entitled to wages to the end of the voyage, and also to the expenses of his cure, so far as cure is possible. If this seaman had come home in the ship he might have been discharged at the end of the voyage, so far as the payment of wages was concerned; but that discharge would not have operated to absolve the ship from her obligations to him, under the maritime law, to pay for all the additional expenses of his medical treatment and cure, within a reasonable time afterwards. This was expressly adjudicated by STORY, J., in Reed v. Canfield, 1 Sum. 195, 197. See Brown v. Overton, 1 Spr. 462; The Laura, 2 Sawy. 245; The City of Alexandria, 17 F. 390, 393; The Centennial, 10 F. 397; Croucher v. Oakman, 3 Allen, 185; Couch v. Steel, 3 El.&Bl. 402; The Enchantress, 1 Hagg. 395. But even if the discharge were held authorized by the language of section 3 of the act of June 26, 1884, above quoted, the act does not specify the consequences of such a discharge. It requires the payment of only one month's extra wages. This, in fact, corresponded with the precise time within which the voyage was afterwards completed. The discharge, if authorized, would doubtless bar all claims for wages subsequent; and the 'discharge' would itself imply that result.

By section 4552, the legal effects of a discharge by a shipping commissioner at the end of the voyage are stated in detail. The second section declares that it 'shall operate as a mutual discharge and settlement of all demands for wages between the parties thereto on account of wages, in respect of the past voyage or engagement. ' A discharge by the foreign consul should have the same effect and no more. Section 4552 does not absolve the vessel from liability for the expenses of the seaman's medical treatment and cure for a hurt received prior to the discharge, nor does the act of June 26, 1884. This is the construction put by Judge LOWELL on the British shipping act...