Period up to which the master may A claim for damages for wrongful dismissal is included under a claim for wages (ƒ). Only money actually expended by the master can properly be treated as disbursements (g), and he will not, as a general rule, be allowed to make any claim in respect of a liability which he has not discharged. But where the master has incurred liabilities on account of the ship in respect of items which have not been paid at the time of the institution of the suit, the Court will frequently allow the items, and at the same time direct that no order for payment be made until they have been discharged (). It is the duty of the master to furnish accounts before suing (i). The fact that the master is also partowner does not take away his right to sue for wages (j). The provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, which regulate the rights of seamen to wages in case of the wreck of the ship, claim wages. and which relate to the wages of seamen dying during a voyage, apply to the master (). Where a master was compelled by pressing necessity of ill-health to leave his ship at a port in the British colonies, it was held he was entitled to sue immediately for his wages (1). And in a case where a master was wrongfully discharged abroad, he was held to be entitled to wages up to the period when he obtained other employment (m). County Court jurisdiction. Maritime lien of master. County Courts having Admiralty Jurisdiction have jurisdiction over actions for master's wages where the amount claimed does not exceed 1507. (n). Formerly, the master had no maritime lien on the ship (p), or freight (1), for his wages, or for disbursements on account of the ship during the voyage. We have seen, however, that under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, he has now the same liens and remedies for his wages as the seamen have; and the seamen have, independently of statute, a lien upon the ship and freight and merchants and reduced, The Le- (f) The Great Eastern, L. R., 1 A. (h) The Feronia, L. R., 2 A. & E. (i) The Fleur de Lis, L. R., 1 A. & E. 49. (j) The Feronia, L. R., 2 A. & E. 65; The Daring, ib. 260. (4) The M. S. Act, 1854, ss. 184, 185; and see post, WAGES. (1) The Rajah of Cochin, Swab. 473. (m) The Camilla, Swab. 313. (n) The 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, s. 3, Appendix, p. ccxcVII. (p) Wilkins v. Carmichael, 1 Doug. 101; Hussey v. Christie, 9 East, 426. (2) Smith v. Plummer, 1 B. & A. 575. for their wages, which lien is enforceable in the Court of Admiralty (r). The master has accordingly in that Court a maritime lien for his wages and for disbursements (s). The claim of the master for his wages earned subsequently (t) to the granting of a bottomry bond has priority over that of a bottomry bond holder, except where the master has bound himself by the bond to pay the money advanced (u), and his claim is preferred to that of a mortgagee (r). But where a master and part-owner of a ship orders necessaries whereby he becomes liable, the material man is entitled to be paid for them out of the proceeds of the ship and freight in priority to a claim of the master for wages and disbursements (y). The seamen's claim for wages takes, however, precedence of the master's claim, either for his own wages or for advance of wages made to the seamen (z). which a claim ing a bill of exchange. The ordinary remedies of the master or mate may, it is ob- Cases in vious, be affected by their conduct in any particular case. Thus, for wages where a mate, having the option at a foreign port to receive may be satisfied by the his wages in money, or by a bill upon the owners, preferred the masteracceptlatter, it was held that he had lost all claim against the ship, because, although where a creditor has taken a bill it is in general regarded as conditional payment only, yet if it be shown that the creditor took the bill in voluntary preference, he must be regarded as accepting it in satisfaction of his debt (a). Where a master had several times balanced accounts with the owner, which included disbursements and wages, and had re (r) See post, Chap. IV. CREW. (8) See the judgment of Dr. Lushington in The Ella A. Clark, 32 L. J., P. M. & A. 211; and in The Mary Ann, L. R., 1 A. & E. 8. This lien is not impaired by reason of his employer having a fraudulent possession of the ship, The Edwin, Br. & L. 281; 33 L. J., P. M. & A. 197; or by the master releasing his personal claim against the owner. The Chieftain, Br. & Lush. 212. Where the ship belongs to a company whose affairs are being wound up under the Winding-up Acts, the master should obtain leave to proceed in the admiralty, or should seek his remedy by proceedings in the winding up. In re Australian Navigation Co., L. R., 20 Eq. 325; In re Rio Grande Steamship Co., 5 C. D. 282. Bankruptcy, see Halliday v. Harris, L. R., 9 Č. P. 668, and In re T. C., L. R. (Irish), 11 Eq. 151. As to (t) The Jonathan Goodhue, Swa. 524. In the case of The Hope, Asp. Mar. (u) As to the right of the master to (x) The Mary Ann, L. R., 1 A. & E. 8. (y) The Jenny Lind, L. R., 3 A. & E. 529. () The Salacia, Lush. 545. See, however, The Edward Oliver, L. R., 1 A. & E. 379. (a) See The William Money, 2 Hagg. 136. Equitable lien on freight in respect of money expended to enable the ship to earn the freight. Master may ceived bills for the joint amounts, and there was nothing to show that the master had accepted the bills in satisfaction and discharge of his claim, it was held, that upon the owner becoming bankrupt, the bills being unpaid, the master had still his remedy under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 112 (b). Where a master entered into charter-parties abroad, and paid monies and incurred liabilities in fitting his ship to perform them, and on her arrival in England the owner was bankrupt, having mortgaged the ship, and the mortgagees seized her, it was held, on a bill filed by the master against the owner's assignees in bankruptcy, that he had an equitable lien on the freight, and was entitled to be reimbursed out of it (c). The master may insure his wages and any other interest which insure wages. he may have in the ship or voyage. Unlike the other mariners, he might (even before the alteration in the law by which the right of the seamen to wages is made no longer to depend on the earning of freight) insure his wages; since the objections in the former case did not apply to that of the master, who was always entitled to his wages, although the ship was lost or captured (d). AUTHORITY OVER CREW AND PASSEN- Thirdly, as to the authority of the master over his crew or others on board. Whilst his vessel is afloat, the master is bound to maintain order and discipline on board, under the guidance of justice, moderation and good sense. His authority over his crew has been compared to that of a parent over his child, or of a master over his apprentice; these analogies, however, are not very close, and the safer rule is to consider the particular authority which the respective positions of the parties require (e). A master may order a delinquent mariner to be confined, or inflict corporal punishment upon him (ƒ), and this authority exists not only whilst the ship is at sea, but also whilst she is in a foreign port or river (g). But it is only extreme cases, and where it is (b) The Simlah, 15 Jur. 865; Marsh v. Pedder, 4 Camp. 257; Strong v. Hart, 6 B. & C. 160, (c) Bristowe v. Whitmore, 31 L. J., Chan. 467, reversing the decision of the Lord Chancellor, 4 De G. & J. 325; The Feronia, L. R., 2 A. & E. 65. (d) King v. Glover, 2 N. R. 206; Webster v. De Tastet, 7 T. R. 157; Hawkins v. Twizell, 5 E. & B. 883. (e) The English authorities on this absolutely necessary to preserve discipline, that corporal punishment should be inflicted, and it must in all cases be awarded with due moderation (). The master is not bound to wait for an actual act of mutiny, but may use violence to prevent it, although it be only threatened (i). In all cases which admit of the delay, due inquiry should precede the punishment, and the party charged should be heard in his own defence (). It is the duty of the master to cause a statement of the offence, and of any punishment which may be inflicted, to be entered in the official log (1). The position of passengers is different; but even over them the master has absolute control in all that is necessary for the safe and proper conduct of the vessel, but the exercise of such power in each instance is defined and limited by the necessity of the case. He may restrain them by force, if the safety of the ship or of those on board requires it (m); he may also, it would seem, exclude them from the table where the other passengers mess, if their conduct be improper (n). If the master exceeds the bounds of justice and moderation, he becomes a trespasser, and is liable to be sued either in the Admiralty (0) or in a common law court (p). Fourthly, as to the duties of the master, we will consider them DUTIES OF as they arise before the voyage, during the voyage, and after THE MASTER. the voyage has been determined. Before the commencement of the voyage the duty of the Before the master as regards the state of the ship, is identical with that of Voyage. the owner (7). There are, however, other duties which fall the very reasonable rule, that where it appears that the punishment is merited, they will not undertake to adjust exactly, according to their own idea of fitness and propriety, the balance between the offence and the punishment, and that they will not award damages unless the punishment is manifestly excessive. See the cases cited in the 5th American edition of Abbott on Shipping, 236. (h) Per Lord Stowell, in The Lowther Castle, 1 Hagg. 385; Murray v. Moutrie, 6 C. & P. 471. (i) The Lima, 3 Hagg. 346; and see Bingham v. Garnault, Buller, N. P. 17. (k) See per Lord Stowell, in The Agincourt, 1 Hagg. 274. (1) The M. S. Act, 1854, s. 244. See an account of the log, post, p. 140, and the remarks of Tindal, C. J., in Murray v. Moutrie, ubi sup. (m) See the judgment of Lord Ellen borough in Boyce v. Bayliffe, 1 Camp. (n) Prendergast v. Compton, 8 C. & P. SENGERS. (0) The Enchantress, 1 Hagg. 395; The Centurion, ib. 161; The Ruckers, 4 Rob. 73. (p) Watson v. Christie, 2 B. & P. 224; Aitken v. Bedwell, M. & M. 68; Rhodes v. Leach, 2 Stark. 516; Hannaford v. Hunn, 2 C. & P. 148. (a) Ante, p. 73. A master who takes to sea a ship so unseaworthy as to be likely to endanger the life of any person, is guilty of a misdemeanor, M. S. Act, 1876, s. 4. So also a master who proceeds to sea after he has been served with a notice or order While in harbour master must obey directions of harbour master. Duty to pro of loading with due despatch. more immediately within his province; thus he must procure a competent crew, both as regards number and fitness for their duties; he must also conform to the requirements of the legislature as regards their engagement (), and a due supply of medicines and medical stores (s); and on leaving port he must, if the ship be a foreign-going one, send to the nearest mercantile marine office a statement, in the form sanctioned by the Board of Trade, of every change in his crew up to that time (t). By the General Harbour Act, 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27, s. 53, masters, whilst their vessels are within any harbour or dock, or within the limits of any harbour-master's authority, must regulate their vessels in accordance with that act, or any special act by which the harbour is governed; and if, after due notice, they neglect to do so, they are liable to penalties not exceeding 201. (u). The ship being properly fitted and manned, the master must, ceed to place with due diligence, take her to the place where she is to receive cargo, since if he be guilty of any unreasonable delay or deviation, the shipowner will be liable to an action, and the insurances will be avoided; and if the delay or deviation be of such a character as to put an end to the whole object which the freighter had in view, the latter may be discharged from the contract (x). In all contracts by charter-party, where there is no express agreement as to time, it is an implied stipulation that there shall be no unreasonable or unusual delay in commencing the voyage. All the authorities concur in stating that the voyage must be commenced within a reasonable time (y). for the detention of his ship for unsea- (r) See post, Chap. IV., CREW. See the M. S. Act, 1867, s. 4; the Passengers Act, 1855, s. 43; the M. S. Act, 1876, s. 20, and Appendix, "Forms," Nos. 36, 37, 39. (t) The M. S. Act, 1854, s. 158; and Appendix, "Forms," No. 24a. (u) The provisions of the 10 & 11 Vict. c. 27, which relate to the mode in which vessels must enter harbours, and how they must lie and be moored therein, and in what manner they must discharge cargo, are contained in sects. 53-68. See post, Supp. App. p. 141. See also as to the River Thames "Orders in Council," Supp. App. p. 50. Where a collision arose from obedience to the orders of a harbour master, whose directions the master and crew were bound to obey, it was held, in the Admiralty Court, that the ship was not liable. The Bilbao, Lush. 149. As to the respective duties of the master and dock master, see The Excelsior, L. R., 2 A. & E. 268; The Cynthia, 2 P. D. 52. (x) Jackson v. The Union Marine Insurance Co., L. R., 10 C. P. 125; Tully v. Howling, 2 Q. B. D. 182. But as to the circumstances which justify delay, see post, p. 134, n. (a). (y) See per Tindal, C. J., in M'Andrew v. Adams, 1 Bing. N. C. 29. See also |