Waling v. The Sloop Christina

28 F. Cas. 1367, 1 Or. 430, 1862 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67
CourtDistrict Court, D. Oregon
DecidedFebruary 8, 1862
StatusPublished

This text of 28 F. Cas. 1367 (Waling v. The Sloop Christina) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Waling v. The Sloop Christina, 28 F. Cas. 1367, 1 Or. 430, 1862 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67 (D. Or. 1862).

Opinion

Deadv, J.

The libel in this cause alleges, that the libellant shipped as a seaman on the sloop Christina, at Port Townsend, in W. T., on the 28th of October, 1861, on a voyage from said port to Bellingham Bay; thence to Portland, in Oregon, and back to the port of departure. That the contract of shipment between the libellant and the master, George Thompson, was, that the schooner should proceed to Portland, and that there the said master should purchase a cargo of apples, and return with the same to Port Townsend, and that libellant should have one-third of the profits of said cargo of apples for his wages. That no shipping articles [431]*431were signed. That the vessel proceeded to Bellingham Bay and Portland, in ballast, and arrived at the last-named port about the 20th of November, 1861. That the master did not purchase the cargo of apples, but kept the sloop lying at Portland until the 17th of December, 1861, when she left on a voyage to Shoalwater and elsewhere, without notice to the libellant, and without the payment of his wages. That the libellant remained on the sloop from the 28th of October aforesaid, until the 17th of December, 1861, and during that time was obedient to the orders of the master, and performed his duty as a seaman.

The answer of the master, intervening for the owner, J. K. Thorndyke, alleges, that it is not true that the sloop, at the time of her departure, was bound on a voyage to the ports mentioned in the libel, or either of them. That it is not true that the master agreed with libellant to purchase a cargo of apples at Portland, and return with them to Port Townsend, and give libellant one-third of the profits for his wages. That the sloop left the port of Portland, as alleged by libellant, for Shoalwater Bay; but that the master gave libellant notice of such sailing, and libellant refused to go. That the sloop sailed from Port Townsend, on a general coasting voyage, to go wherever the interest of trade might require. That libellant was to have one-third of the profits for his wages, and that it was not stipulated between the master and libellant otherwise than this. That up to the time the libellant left the sloop, the freight had not paid the expenses, and the libellant is not entitled to any thing. That the sloop is a coasting vessel, of thirteen and f | tons burden.

The master and two seamen of the sloop, Quaile and Fisher, were examined on behalf of the libellant. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant. Quaile sailed in the sloop from Port Townsend, and Fisher was shipped just before the sloop left Portland for Shoalwater Bay. The master is the principal witness. His statements, on the stand, do not liarmonize, in some material respects, with the allegations of his answer. Besides, the transaction [432]*432involves Ms own conduct, and the motives therefor, to that extent, that the court is inclined to take his statements more strongly against himself, where they admit of doubt. In the answer, he denies, unequivocally, that the libellant shipped for a voyage to Bellingham Bay; thence to Portland; and thence back to the port of departure, or either of them. On the stand, he admits that the sloop sailed-for Portland, to touch at Bellingham Bay, and that he expected -to load with coal, at the latter port, for Portland; but did not obtain it, and proceeded in ballast to Portland. Also, that he expected to meet a draft at Portland, with which he intended to buy a cargo of apples,-or something else, and return with -them-to Port Townsend or Yictoria. That the draft was not sent to Mm at Portland, or he would have done so. It appears from the testimony of the master and Quaile, that when the sloop was -about to sail, the libellant was at Port Townsend, and the master-asked him if-he would go with him on the sloop to Portland. The libellant replied in the affirmative, and went aboard, as far as appears, without stipulation, as to the terminus of the voyage, other than that implied in the engagement to go to Portland, and without any stipulation as to the rate or mode of payment of his wages. The master further says, that after-being at sea four or five days, he told Waling that he expected money at Portland, to buy a cargo of apples; that he expected to take them to Port Townsend; and that lie was to have one-third of the profits of the voyage; and that he would give Waling the same; which was assented to; but insists that, this understanding was subject to his own discretion to go anywhere else upon a general trading voyage on the coast, and that there was no understanding how long libellant should remain on board. Quaile says, that after the- first hiring at Port Townsend, he heard the master tell Waling that he would give him the same wages that he got himself. That he heard nothing about apples; but did hear the draft mentioned. When this took place he does not state; but it is fair to presume that, so far as it goes, it refers to the [433]*433conversation mentioned by the master four or five days at sea.

The master testifies that he did not get the draft at Portland, and in consequence did not purchase the cargo of apples, and sail with them to Port Townsend, as he contemplated, or might have done. That after remaining at Portland until the 17th of December, 1861, he took a cargo on freight for Shoalwater Bay, with the intention to return to Portland with a cargo of oysters. That on that day, in the afternoon, he told Waling of the intended voyage, and that he might sail in ten minutes, or three days, and that when the sloop was ready he intended to sail, if he went alone. That Waling might go if he wanted to, but that Waling refused to make the voyage. In the course of the evening of that day, it appears that a conversation occurred at Shelly’s store, between the libellant, his proctor, the master and Mr. Shelly’s clerk; from which, although it does not distinctly appear, it is pretty evident that the libellant contemplated arresting the sloop for his wages, and that the master and Mr. Shelly’s clerk were aware of it, or suspected it. At that time the master said, in the presence of the libellant, that he would sail in the morning. Afterwards, he says, that the clerk advised him to sail that night, and he did sail about eight o’clock in the evening. The wind was very light, and they sailed and drifted down that night to Sauvie’s Island, a distance of about eight miles, and there laid by until the forenoon of the next day, when they proceeded down the Columbia Diver to sea, with a light wind, and pulling and drifting part of the way. There was a strong current in the river, and no perceptible tide. The libellant’s clothes were on board the sloop at the time of sailing, and were left with some one on a steamboat alongside. The libellant was not aboard the sloop that afternoon.

Prom all the evidence—the nature of the circumstances considered—I think the fact is, that while it appears to be true that the sloop left in the night, without wind or tide, or other ordinary inducement for such time of sailing, it was not to prevent Waling from going on the contemplated voyage [434]*434to Shoalwater, but to avoid being arrested at tbe suit of Waling for his wages from Port Townsend to Portland. I think it appears sufficiently that Waling had already declined to make the particular voyage. Assuming this to be the fact, what effect does it have upon the libellant’s claim for wages ? This depends upon the nature of the hiring. It appears that the first contract, on shore, at Port Townsend, was simply a shipping as a sailor, to go to Portland, without any agreement as to the mode of payment, or the amount of the wages.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 F. Cas. 1367, 1 Or. 430, 1862 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waling-v-the-sloop-christina-ord-1862.