This  court  is  not  then  precluded  by  the  record  from  an  in-
vestigation of  the  merits  of  the  case.  Looking  at  the  evidence,
it  cannot,  as  it  appears  to  me,  admit  a  doubt  that  this  was  a
tortious  discharge.  The  only  fault  or  neglect  charged  on  the
mariner  was  his  refusal  to  break  up  the  raft  under  the  circum-
^stances  before  stated.  As  the  case  appears  to  me,  there  was
quite  as  much  fault  in  the  officers  as  the  man.  He  was  re-
quired to  break  up  the  raft  in  the  night  time,  the  rope  by
which  it  was  made  fast  to  the  vessel  taken  in,  and  a  moderate
current,  according  to  all  the  witnesses,  constantly  carrying  the
raft  from  the  vessel.  It  is  evident  that  while  he  was  passing
np  the  boards,  the  raft  would  be  constantly  receding  from  the
vessel,  and  would  in  a  short  time  be  at  such  a  distance  that  it
would  not  only  be  impracticable  to  pass  the  boards  and  plank
on  deck,  but  also  impossible  for  him  to  regain  the  vessel.  He
did  not  refuse  to  do  the  work  which  was  required  of  him  ;  he
merely  asked  for  the  boat  to  be  let  down,  or  a  rope  to  be
thrown  to  him,  to  enable  him  to  do  it.  The  refusal  even  of  a
rope,  which  might  have  been  given  without  the  least  possible
inconvenience,  seems  to  have  oroceeded  more  from  caprice
than  from  any  conceivable  obj^ion  that  could  be  made  to  so
reasonable  a  request  The  next  day,  Hutchinson  offered  to
return,  but  the  master  refused  to  receive  him.  The  only
justification  now  offered  for  this  refusal  4s  his  alleged  miscon-


64  DISTRICT  COURT,

Hatchinson  r.  Coombs.
