United States v. McArdle
District Court, D. Oregon
This indictment charges that the defendant [James McArdle], on February 26, 1873, being lawfully engaged as a cook upon the British ship Gemini, within the district aforesaid. did then and there “wilfully and continuously disobey the lawful commands” of the chief officer of said ship—stating the command—contrary to the statute, etc. On the trial the jury found a verdict of guilty of disobedience, but not continuous.
Read the full summary
This indictment charges that the defendant [James McArdle], on February 26, 1873, being lawfully engaged as a cook upon the British ship Gemini, within the district aforesaid. did then and there “wilfully and continuously disobey the lawful commands” of the chief officer of said ship—stating the command—contrary to the statute, etc. On the trial the jury found a verdict of guilty of disobedience, but not continuous. Afterward the defendant’s counsel moved in arrest of judgment, which motion was argued and submitted on March 19.
1Opinion of the Court
DEADY, District Judge.
The ground of the motion is, that the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute a crime against the laws of the United States. Section 51 of the act of June 7, 1872 (17 Stat. 275), commonly called the shipping act, provides: “That when any seaman who has been lawfully engaged * * * commits any of the following offenses, he shall be liable to be punished as follows, that is to say: * * * Fourthly, for wilful disobedience to any lawful command, he shall be liable to imprisonment, etc. Fifthly, for continued wilful disobedience to any lawful commands * * * he shall…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Grant v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1893
- United States v. SullivanU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1890
- Fayette v. American Pac. S. S. Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1954