United States v. Cassedy

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts

United States v. Cassedy

25 F. Cas. 321, 2 Sumn. 582

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts

DecidedMay 15, 1837

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 25 F. Cas. 321 (United States v. Cassedy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Cassedy, 25 F. Cas. 321, 2 Sumn. 582 (circtdma 1837).

Pincite

Opinion

STORY, Circuit Justice,

in summing up to the jury said: Upon the facts stated in the evidence, which indeed, is uot in its general bearing disputed, the question arises, whether the defendants, or any of them, are guilty of the offence charged. in the indictment. And that depends upon another question, whether there was among the defendants, or any two or more of them, a common confederacy or combination to refuse to do further duty on board the ship, and to resist the lawful commands of the officers in regard to the sailing or preparations for the voyage. If there was any such confederacy or combination, or any encouragement by the defendants of each other in such acts of refusal and disobedience, then the offence, in contemplation of law, has been committed, unless some justification of the refusal and disobedience is made out. The defendants seem to have proceeded upon the ground, that they were not bound to service on board after the original master ceased to be such; and that they were not bound to serve under the mate, acting as master, under a regular substituted appointment. This is a sheer mistake of the law. The contract of seamen for the voyage is not suspended or extinguished by the original master's ceasing to be such, by death, by removal, by resignation, or otherwise. They are bound to perform the voyage under any person, who is lawfully substituted master for the voyage; for their engagement is, in substance, an engagement with the owners for the voyage, and uot with a particular master, so long as he remains such. It is true, that if a person, substituted as master, is grossly incompetent to the duties of his station from want of due skill or from grossly bad habits, or from profligate and cruel behavior, that may furnish a suitable excuse for a refusal to do duty, or to remain by the ship. But such a case must be clearly made out, beyond all reasonable doubt, and it is not to be presumed, or inferred. There is no such proof in the present case; and, therefore, it cannot be insisted on. The evidence, so far as it goes, is decidedly favorable to the competency, skill, and good character of the mate. The question then resolves itself into a mere question of fact, upon which the jury will pass their opinion.

Verdict against all the defendants, guilty.

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

STORY, Circuit Justice,

in summing up to the jury said: Upon the facts stated in the evidence, which indeed, is uot in its general bearing disputed, the question arises, whether the defendants, or any of them, are guilty of the offence charged. in the indictment. And that depends upon another question, whether there was among the defendants, or any two or more of them, a common confederacy or combination to refuse to do further duty on board the ship, and to resist the lawful commands of the officers in regard to the sailing or preparations for the voyage. If there was any such confederacy or combination, or any encouragement by the defendants of each other in such acts of refusal and disobedience, then the offence, in contemplation of law, has been committed, unless some justification of the refusal and disobedience is made out. The defendants seem to have proceeded upon the ground, that they were not bound to service on board after the original master ceased to be such; and that they were not bound to serve under the mate, acting as master, under a regular substituted appointment. This is a sheer mistake of the law. The contract of seamen for the voyage is not suspended or extinguished by the original master's ceasing to be such, by death, by removal, by resignation, or otherwise. They are bound to perform the voyage under any person, who is lawfully substituted master for the voyage; for their engagement is, in substance, an engagement with the owners for the voyage, and uot with a particular master, so long as he remains such. It is true, that if a person, substituted as master, is grossly incompetent to the duties of his station from want of due skill or from grossly bad habits, or from profligate and cruel behavior, that may furnish a suitable excuse for a refusal to do duty, or to remain by the ship. But such a case must be clearly made out, beyond all reasonable doubt, and it is not to be presumed, or inferred. There is no such proof in the present case; and, therefore, it cannot be insisted on. The evidence, so far as it goes, is decidedly favorable to the competency, skill, and good character of the mate. The question then resolves itself into a mere question of fact, upon which the jury will pass their opinion.

Verdict against all the defendants, guilty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 F. Cas. 321, 2 Sumn. 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cassedy-circtdma-1837.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack