Ruddy

Ruddy v. The Golden State

Good Law
20 F. Cas. 1309·1861 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 21, 1861California1,098 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hoffman, J.

The libellants were shipped at this port for a voyage to Humboldt Bay, thence to Tahiti, and back to this port, at the rate of $20 per month. The vessel proceeded to Humboldt Bay, took in a cargo, and sailed for Tahiti, but was obliged to put into this port to repair damages by stress of location. A few days after her arrival, the men who had continued on board were put ashore by a police officer, acting under the captain’s orders. They now claim their wages and damages for the breach of contract. The defence set up is forfeiture by desertion. The log-book is not produced, nor is it pretended that the men were at any time absent without leave for forty-eight hours, which, by the statute, constitutes a desertion involving the forfeiture of wages. They appear to have gone ashore for a few hours, in the early part of the evening, on one or two occasions, but it does not seem that this breach of discipline was considered of sufficient consequence to be noted in the log-book. The only testimony which tends to show that the men refused to continue the voyage is that of Captain Crandell. This witness swears that he was on the vessel dining with the captain, when the men came off. They…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.