High Court Of Admiralty, ...
r Lord STOW ?.L gave sentence in this- cue O-wday . and after com- meuting upon the desecriptiqn of the voyage for which thc Vartiei I claimiiig wates bad engaged-as that description appeared in the heading Qf the artiudes-he expressed his opinion, that the men were by no means bound, after their arrival in the Downs, to proceed to Holland, that if the Master persisted in iailing for a Dutch port, when tdie aareemner.t with the mariners was expressly for a voyage " from London to.New South Wales, viaCoik, and elsewhere, and back to the port of London," the men were justified in declining to continue with himi tfer that which was, in fact; a new trip; and that their ieaving the vessel under snch circumstan3es Was not ajdeser- ton, nor any thing tbat- could, in fair constrtction, be: said to resemble z desertion. If the.refusal ofthe seamen to preceed to Holland were to-be considered a desertiDn, it woluld be difficult to .define the understanding of any terms that affected -to inmpose any lnitatiisns -wlatever upon voyages. If theone-party was tobebound by rhelanguage-of the agreement, soshould the other prty be ant that 6iheryartty had stipulated with the men, that from the port at which tbeir outward voyage might terminate, they should :returm. not to Rotterdam,-or elsewhere, and LUndonrbut to the port of Lori- don. Under the circmistances . of-the -case, -the C{oort pronouriced- the wages clWitnediby the mariners to- be due; and condemnned the master and iwners ll all the cost3Af the-proceedizngs in this Corrt. HIGH COURT OF AD,IIRALTY:. TvirnAm- lt,- if THE COIwTFrRS fF ----