Thorne v. White
District Court, D. Pennsylvania
A seaman cited the master, to shew cause why process should not issue against the ship, for wages. 2 Cause shewn. That the mariner, who had conducted himself well, in other respects, during the whole voyage had a difference with the captain, in the river Delaware, on the ship's return. A quarrel ensued, and blows passed. The master began the affray, with violence and intemperate passion.
Read the full summary
A seaman cited the master, to shew cause why process should not issue against the ship, for wages. 2 Cause shewn. That the mariner, who had conducted himself well, in other respects, during the whole voyage had a difference with the captain, in the river Delaware, on the ship's return. A quarrel ensued, and blows passed. The master began the affray, with violence and intemperate passion. He threw scalding water, into the seaman’s face — provoked resistance first, and after-wards a return of blows, from the seaman. Both parties conducted themselves improperly. The master confined the mariner…
1Opinion of the Court
BY THE COURT
(HOPKINSOX, District Judge).
It is unreasonable to insist on the neglect of duty, when the seaman was prevented by confinement and threats. Passes at him, with a drawn sword were made by the captain, at one time, when he attempted to come on deck. If affrays on board ships, arising from sudden quarrels, are to forfeit wages, forfeitures would be very common indeed. It is a mistake, frequently entertained by owners and masters of ships, that broils, assaults on, or resistance to masters (produced most commonly by faults on both sides) forfeit wages. Such offences are often…
2Cited by2 opinions
- The Cornelia AmsdenDistrict Court, N.D. New York · 1871
- Thompson v. The Stacey ClarkeDistrict Court, S.D. Alabama · 1892