allow anything to be inserted in them which is not strictly according to fact. In bills of lading, when there is the least reason to suspect the quantity is not right, or that there is any damage in the goods, the master had better write in the body of the bill, as thus: If hemp, flax, bars of iron, &c. Quantity and conditions unknown; and three bundles of hemp in dispute: if on board to be delivered. Master. If linen, yarn, bales, hardware, &c. Insides and contents unknown to Master. If tar, wines, brandy, turpentine, &c.— Contents and conditions unknown; not to be accountable for leakage. And it is agreed that the freight shall be paid for the quantity shipped. Articles of a perishable nature Master. Not to be accountable for loss by natural decay of the articles; and freight to be paid for the articles shipped. Master. And when any goods are to be carried on deck, it should be expressed in the bill of lading. If the above special matters cannot be inserted in the body of the bill (but which is always very desirable, as they then form a direct part of the contract), but have to be put in the margin or at the foot of it, then it will be advisable to get the shipper or his consignee to sign (after the master) his name under the memorandum, with his addition of owner or consignee. Bills of lading are transferable by endorsement, like an ordinary bill of exchange; and a master is bound to deliver goods; to a holder who produces the endorsed bill and has acquired a legal right to it. And it makes no difference whether the endorsement is to a particular person, or in blank, or to bearer; for the shipper or consignee may fill up the name of any person to whom the goods are to be delivered, or attach conditions to the endorsement. And, acting in good faith, and according to the best of his judgment, the master is safe in making delivery to the holder who first produces the bill of lading duly endorsed, unless he is satisfied that the circumstances are such as to justify a suspicion of such holder having come by the bill accidentally, unfairly, or fraudulently.* Bills of lading made in the United States must each be stamped with a ten cent stamp.† It is usual for the master or his mate to grant a receipt for goods, when brought to the ship's side, for loading on board; and when this is done, care, as we have in effect before suggested, must be taken not to sign and deliver the bills of lading to any party, unless to the one who can give the receipt in exchange, and until delivery of that receipt. For, in one case, where a sugar refining company had sold twenty-four hogsheads of loaf sugar to be delivered free on board The George, Captain Ryder, for Hamburg,' and the goods were sent to the vessel and a receipt given -Received on board The George, &c., the undermentioned sugars for Hamburg, for and on account of C. & Co.,' the sugar refiners; the purchasers failed, and the lighterman, who had carried the sugars to the ship, demanded them on the part of the sellers, tendering the freight and charges and producing the receipt; but the purchasers having sold in the meantime to a third party, had got the shipmaster, inadvertently, to give a bill of lading to that third party. In an action against the shipmaster by the sellers, for redelivery of the sugars, it was held, that *Lee's Laws of Shipping, 215. the shipmaster had received the sugars on account of the sellers, C. & Co., and had given a restrictive receipt accordingly; that the regular practice is that the person who is in possession of the receipt is alone entitled to the bill of lading, and the shipmaster ought not to have given a bill of lading except to the person who could give the receipt in exchange; and, consequently, that the person holding the receipt has a control over the goods till he has exchanged it for the bill of lading. * And in another action against a shipmaster for thirtyfive puncheons of rum, the seller had shipped the rum and tendered to the mate (the master being absent) a receipt by which the goods were acknowledged to be shipped on account of the seller, which the mate kept, and, on the following day, signed bills of lading to the order of the purchasers. It was held, that it was the shipmaster's duty to sign the receipt, and not the bills of lading, until the receipt had been delivered by the seller to the purchasers; and that, therefore, the seller was entitled to stop the goods.† 9. DISMISSAL OF SEAMAN BEFORE EARNING A MONTH'S WAGES. ALSO AS TO HIS RIGHTS ON AN ABANDONMENT OR BREAKING UP OF VOYAGE. Where a seaman is engaged and signs articles for a certain voyage, and is then, without any fault of his own, discharged before he has earned a month's wages, he will be entitled to claim compensation for the injury he has suffered by being so discharged. The amount which, under the circumstances, he may claim, is not to exceed one month's pay, in addition to the amount of wages earned, and the same is to be fixed by Court or Consul (as the case may be). If, after the hiring of seamen, the Craven v. Ryder, 6 Taunton's Reports, 433. + Ruck v. Hatfield, 2 Barnwell and Alderson's Reports, 632. 3 owners of the ship abandon the intended voyage, or if it be broken up from any cause not arising from the fault or misconduct of the crew, they are entitled to receive wages in the nature of damages, the amount being discretionary and controlled by the circumstances of the particular case. If the voyage be broken up after it has been commenced, by the voluntary act of the master or owner, or by their default, wages are due for the whole voyage. And a wrongful dismissal of a seaman on the voyage, or a failure to supply him with provisions, is, as to that seaman, equivalent to the abandonment of the voyage. The voyage, with respect to him, is then ended, and he is entitled to sue for his full wages for the voyage." Although by the general law and in the face of shipping articles, a master is not ordinarily at liberty to discharge his crew in a foreign port without their consent or steps taken by their Consul, yet circumstances may fall so heavily on an owner-through damage and tempest, although not to the extent of absolute wreck—as to justify a master so to discharge, provided, however, it is done under proper conditions towards the crew. It is difficult to lay down any rule wherein it can take place. The whole must have reference to the evils and delay which have taken or may take place, and to the ruinous consequences to owners. As an example, we give the interesting case of The Brig Elizabeth. She went on a reef of rocks, near the Island of Gothland. Assistance was rendered, the vessel was got off and carried to Ostergam, where she was laid on shore for the purpose of being examined. In consequence of the damage she had sustained, the brig again filled with water and suffered further material injury, so as to make her incapable of returning home Parry v. The Peggy, 2 Brown's Admiralty Reports, Appendix 533; Sigard v. Roberts, 3 Espinasse's N. P. Reports, 71; The Castilia, 1 Haggard's Admiralty Reports, 59; The Malta, 2 ib. 158. † 2 Dodson's Reports, 403. until she had undergone repairs, which could not be completed whilst the season for navigating the Baltic lasted. Under these circumstances the master called the crew together, and proposed to them that they should be discharged and return to England. It appeared that the crew remonstrated, and stated to the master that, having signed articles for the whole voyage, they were entitled to remain by the vessel and return in her to England. Upon which he repeated his determination of sending them home, stating, that from that day they were no longer to consider themselves as belonging to the ship or under his charge. He provided carriages to convey them and their luggage to Wisby; and on their arrival there, the agents of the vessel supplied them with a pass, which had been previously procured by order of the master, and was waiting their arrival at that place, and with this pass they proceeded to England. The Judge, Sir William Scott, said-If the master had a right to dismiss the mariners upon proper conditions and with a due responsibility for the performance of such conditions, the want of consent on the part of mariners would not invalidate his act of authority, if he possessed it. The only real question in this case is, did he possess such an authority? Now, I confess it appears to me that the circumstances in which this vessel was placed did vest in him an authority to discharge his crew, upon proper conditions. Here was a ship that had encountered what the law might call a semi-naufragium (halfshipwreck)-full of water, as they themselves state, so that they could not live on board. She is put into the hands of foreign carpenters for the course (a protracted course) of necessary repairs. It was doubtful whether she could at all receive such repairs as would restore her to a navigable state. It was by no means doubtful that she could not receive such repairs as would enable her to proceed till after the approach of spring in that climate had restored the seas to a navigable state, so as to allow |