St. Paul

S.D. New York

St. Paul

133 F. 1002, 1904 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedNovember 26, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 133 F. 1002 (St. Paul) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

St. Paul, 133 F. 1002, 1904 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94 (S.D.N.Y. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLT, District Judge.

It is important that discipline be maintained on vés'sels, and I think, from the evidence in this case, that quite probably tlie fines imposed on the libelant may have been just. But it is of great importance, if sailors are to be fined a portion of their wages, that the act authorizing such fines shall be strictly complied with, and particularly that the ehtry in the logbook shall be made on the day on which the offense is committed; otherwise on a long voyage there might be such a delay in making the entry, and in notifying the sailor that a fine had been imposed, that it might be impossible or difficult for him to meet the charge on which the fine was based. It is admitted that the entries were not made on the days that the alleged offenses were committed, and I think that, under the provision of the statute, it is a proper éxercise of the court’s discretion to refuse to receive evidence of such offenses.

My conclusion is that there should be a decree for the libelant for' the amount of $19:82 demanded in the libel, with costs. The claimant, in my opinion, was justified in contesting its liability, and there should’ be no fines imposed under the statute imposing them for unreasonable delay in the payment of wages.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOLT, District Judge.

It is important that discipline be maintained on vés'sels, and I think, from the evidence in this case, that quite probably tlie fines imposed on the libelant may have been just. But it is of great importance, if sailors are to be fined a portion of their wages, that the act authorizing such fines shall be strictly complied with, and particularly that the ehtry in the logbook shall be made on the day on which the offense is committed; otherwise on a long voyage there might be such a delay in making the entry, and in notifying the sailor that a fine had been imposed, that it might be impossible or difficult for him to meet the charge on which the fine was based. It is admitted that the entries were not made on the days that the alleged offenses were committed, and I think that, under the provision of the statute, it is a proper éxercise of the court’s discretion to refuse to receive evidence of such offenses.

My conclusion is that there should be a decree for the libelant for' the amount of $19:82 demanded in the libel, with costs. The claimant, in my opinion, was justified in contesting its liability, and there should’ be no fines imposed under the statute imposing them for unreasonable delay in the payment of wages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 F. 1002, 1904 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-paul-nysd-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack