Ancient CHAPTER IX. WAGES. THE jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty in suits for jurisdiction the recovery of wages gave rise to frequent disputes between of Court. that court and the courts of common law (a), but ultimately the Court of Admiralty was allowed to entertain such suits without reference to the locality where the contract was made (which was generally on land or within the body of a county), or to the locality where the wages were earned. This indulgence in favour of the mariners' contract has been said to have been granted on account of the convenience and advantage of proceeding in a court in which all might join in one suit (b). But the better reason would appear to be, that by general maritime law the seaman has a lien on the ship and freight (c) for his wages, and such lien cannot be enforced in the courts of common law, but only through the medium of the Court of Admiralty (d). Did not extend to the master, or to cases of special contract. This indulgence was not extended to the master, and, moreover, was confined, in the case of the seaman, to wages claimed under the ordinary mariners' contract. Where the contract was under seal, or where its terms were special, the Admiralty Court was not allowed to exercise, and did not exercise, jurisdiction (e). By the ordinary contract the (a) See ante, p. 10. (b) Abbott on Shipping, 9th edition, p. 536; Wells v. Osman, 2 Ld. Ray. 1044, 6 Mod. 238; Mills v. Gregory, Sayer, 127. (c) The Neptune, 1 Hagg. 227-239; The Sydney Cove, 2 Dod. 13; The Golubchik, 1 W. Rob. 143. (d) Hook v. Moreton, 1 Ld. Ray. 398. (e) Opy v. Child, 1 Salk. 31; Day v. Serle, K. B. East. T., 7 Geo. ii. eited in Machlachlan on Shipping, p. 228; Howe v. Nappier, 4 Burr. 1944; The Mariner's Case, 8 Mod. 379; The Sydney Cove, 2 Dods. 11; The Mona, 1 W. Rob. 137; The Riby Grove, 2 W. Rob. 52; The De Brescia, 3 W. Rob 36; The Harriet, 1 Lush. 285. mariner was presumed to contract with the master on the credit or security of the ship (ƒ), whereas the master and a seaman entering into any special contract differing from the ordinary maritime contract, were presumed to trust to the personal credit of the owners, and having therefore no lien on the ship, had no right to sue in the Admiralty Court. tion by Court Act, It has now, however, become practically immaterial to Jurisdic consider the restrictions which formerly limited the juris- statute. diction of the Admiralty Court over claims for wages, the rights of the master and seamen to wages being now regulated, and the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court over claims for wages greatly extended, by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. By the 10th Admiralty section of the latter Act jurisdiction is given to the Admiralty 1861. Court" over any claim by a seaman of any ship for wages earned by him on board the ship, whether the same be due under a special contract or otherwise, and also over any claim by the master of any ship for wages earned by him on board the ship, and for disbursements made by him on account of the ship." The effect of this section is to extend (g) and not to curtail the jurisdiction of the Court, and cases in which the Court previously exercised jurisdiction are still, though not within the words of the section, within the jurisdiction of the Court. sons en in the Court. The persons whose claims are comprehended within the What persection are masters and seamen. The Admiralty Court Act, titled 1861, gives no definition of the word "seaman," but by the to proceed Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, a considerable part of which is Admiralty devoted to the subject of seamen's wages, it is declared (s. 2), that for the purposes of that Act "seaman " shall include every person (except masters, pilots, and apprentices duly indentured and registered) employed or engaged in any capacity on board any ship, and no doubt the word would, for the purposes of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, be considered to (f) Read v. Chapman, 2 Str. 937; Woodward v. Rontham, 1 Ld. Ray. 3; Clay v. Snelgrave, 12 Mod. 405; Ragg v. King, 2 Str. 858; The Lord Hobart, 2 Dods. 104; The Favourite, 2 C. Rob. 232. (g) See the Preamble to the Act, and per Dr. Lushington, The Diana, 1 Lush. 539; and see The Sylph, 37 L, J. Ad. 14-15. Nature of Wrongful dismissal. have a meaning at least as extensive. Moreover, by the ancient practice of the Court the privilege of suing in the Court extended to every person other than the master employed on board a ship (h): to the mate (1), to a surgeon (j), to a pilot, unless the contract was made and the work done infra corpus comitatus (k), to a purser (1), to a ship's carpenter (m), to a boatswain (n), to a female acting as cook and steward (o), and to an apprentice (p). The word "seaman" thus appears to include every person other than the master who may have a claim for wages. The claim mentioned in the 10th section of the Admiralty the claim. Court Act, 1861, is a claim for wages earned on board any ship (q). Ship, for the purposes of the Act, includes any description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars (r). The words wages earned on board the ship would seem to exclude all claims merely in the nature of damages, such as for wrongful dismissal before the termination of the engagement, and the like, and to confine the extension of jurisdiction to wages actually earned on board the ship on which the seaman is employed. Thus the Court would not have jurisdiction to award compensation for a wrongful dismissal in any case in which the seaman was engaged under a special contract; the only jurisdiction which the Court has in such a case being that conferred by the section (s). The Court, (h) The Prince George, 3 Hagg. 379. (i) Bayly v. Grant, 1 Salk. 33, 12 Mod. 444, 1 Ld. Ray. 632; Hook v. Moreton, 1 Ld. Ray. 397. (j) The Lord Hobart, 2 Dods. 105; (k) Ross v. Walker, 2 Wils. 264. (m) Wheeler v. Thompson, Str. 707; (n) Alleson v. March, 2 Ventr. 181; Ragg v. King, 2 Str. 858. (0) The Jane and Matilda, 1 Hagg. (p) The Albert Crosby, Lush. 44. it was held that wages were earned by the master on board his ship, although during his service he did not sleep on board the ship, and many of his duties were performed on shore. (r) Sect. 2. (8) The Court of Queen's Bench, in a case of Goddard v. Wellborn, M. T. 1864, were strongly of opinion that under the 188th section of the M. S. A. 1854, justices had no jurisdiction except in claims for wages properly so called, and had no jurisdiction in determining whether any wages were due to a seaman, to adjudicate whether or not he had been properly disrated for misconduct or incompetency; and that such adjudication against the seaman was no however, has always exercised jurisdiction in ordinary wages suits, to award to seamen, either as wages or as compensation in the nature of wages, what at common law would be recoverable only as damages. Thus, when there has been a wrongful dismissal, the Court has awarded to the seaman wages up to the time when the contract would have expired. in ordinary course, less such a sum as the seaman may have earned in the meantime, and if discharged abroad, has also awarded to the seaman the expense of returning to his port of discharge (t). So, too, in the case of foreign seamen improperly discharged in this country, the Court has always been in the habit of awarding to them the expenses of their return to their own country (u). It does not seem to have been doubted that where the voyage was once commenced, and the seaman was discharged in its course, however soon' after its commencement, the Court had jurisdiction, and the Court has also exercised jurisdiction in cases where the seaman was discharged before the commencement of the voyage, and the ship proceeded on the voyage (x). It is now, answer to a claim by him for damages for being improperly disrated, although it was to a claim for wages strictly so called. (t) The Exeter, 2 C. Rob. 261; The Beaver, 3 id. 92; The Elizabeth, 2 Dods. 403-412, in which Lord Stowell says: Nothing can be more generally or more peremptorily laid down than that a master discharging a seaman wrongfully is answerable for the whole wages of the voyage of that ship." The Eliza, 1 Hagg. 182-186; The City of London, 1 W. Rob. 88; The Camilla, Swa. 312. (u) The Madonna D'Idra, 1 Dods. 37. The Constancia, 15 W. R. 183, where it is spoken of as the seaman's riaticum. In The San José Primeiro, the Registrar and Merchants in their report (29th June, 1860) allowed Portuguese seamen their passage money home. In The Ermina (8th August, 1860) a colonial ship, where the voyage was before one however, comparatively immaterial to consider whether or not the Court rightly exercised jurisdiction under such circumstances, for in the case of all ships to which the third part of Discharge the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, is applicable (y), a seaman month's who has signed an agreement, and is afterwards discharged before the commencement of the voyage, or before one month's wages are earned, without fault justifying his discharge, and without his consent, is entitled to recover, in addition to any wages he may have earned, due compensation not exceeding one month's wages, and may recover such compensation as if it were wages duly earned (2). wages earned. Sums recoverable The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, renders various sums of as wages. money, which are not wages properly so called, recoverable as wages, and the Court has jurisdiction over claims in such cases in the same manner as it has over claims for wages. Thus, Double pay the two days' pay payable by the 187th section, to a seaman for every day not exceeding ten during which payment of his wages is delayed without sufficient cause beyond the period fixed by the section, is made recoverable as wages, and may be pronounced for by the Court in wages causes (a). of a jury. It is submitted that there is (y) See sect. 109 of the Act, and (z) Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, s. 167. (a) The Princess Helena, Lush. 190, and see The Elizabeth, 6 Jur. 156; The British Empire, Reports of Registrar and Merchants, 3rd April, 1859, confirmed by the judge, 1st August, 1859. The Registrar and Merchants bave allowed ten days' double pay in the following cases referred to them within the last few years: Blakeney, 21st May, 1859, confirmed 2nd June, 1859; Sarah Charlotte, 16th July, 1859, confirmed 1st August, 1859; Sultan, 19th July, 1860; Randolph, 24th April, 1863; Calypso, 29th August, 1863, confirmed 3rd November, 1863; Countess of Yarborough, 5th September, 1863, confirmed 17th November, 1863; Premier, 22nd January, 1864; James Hay, 7th May, 1864; Nipisiquit, 14th January, 1865; Neptune's Car, 24th January, 1865; Ellen Morrison, 17th February, |