Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/172

 160 FEDERAL REPORTER. �quent retnm to duty, as he desired. To inflict upon him, under these circumstances, loss of wages also, would be imposing a double pun- ishment. �In the case of Brower v. The Maiden, Gilp. 296, Hopkinson, J., �says: �" When seamen are conflned on board for any miaeonduct or disobedience, bas it ever been pretended that their wages stop, or are therefore forfeited during confinement ? I know of no such case. Their imprisonment is their punishment, and forfeiture of wages has not been added to it." See, also, Bray v. The Shtp Atlanta, Bee, 48 ; Wood v. The Nimrod, Gilp. 83, 89; Jay v. Almy, 1 Wood & M. 262; Tkom v.White, 1 Pet. Ad. 168, 175. �It is only where a mariner is incorrigibly disobedient, and his con- finement, in consequence of his own dangerous character, is neces- sary to the safety of the ship, that a forfeiture of wages has also been imposed. It would be not only unjust to the seaman, but highly im- politic and dangerous as a precedent, to permit the vessel to make a profit by the confinement of seamen on board except in cases of this description. The proofs in this case fall far short of that, and the libellant should, therefore, reeover his wages up to January 31, 1879, at the rate of $30 per month, less $60 advanced to him, with costs. ��� �