Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/486

In December 1692, the respondent, and one Sedgwick, (since deceased,) as part-owners of a ship, called the Royal James and Mary, and the appellant, as captain of that ship, entered [138] into a charter-party with the East India Company, for making a voyage, with the said ship, to the East Indies; and it was thereby, inter alia, agreed,

That the governor and company were not to pay the owners any freight, until six days after the said ship should return to the port of London, and make a full delivery of her lading, into the company's warehouse; but the master might detain the imprest-money. And, that if the ship should be lost in her voyage, the master and owners should not expect any other satisfaction than the imprest-money, for the freight and demurrage of the ship.

The imprest-money was £2010; and the captain, having hired seamen to navigate the ship for her said voyage, did, by the direction of the owners, take bonds from those seamen respectively, to himself, in the penalty of £200 that they should not demand any wages, more than the imprest-money, until the ship's arrival at the port of London.

The ship accordingly proceeded on her voyage; and, having delivered part of her outward-bound cargo at Fort St. George, she sailed from thence with the residue for Bengal; but, in going up that river, was, by the negligence of the pilot, unfortunately lost.

Upon the captain's return to England, a suit was commenced against him in the Admiralty Court by the seamen, for the payment of their wages for the outward-bound voyage; and, the owners having refused to defend him against this suit, be exhibited his bill in the Court of Chancery, against both them and the seamen, for an injunction and relief; and for payment of £282 as due to him for his own wages, and £267 19s. 7d. which he had, during the voyage, advanced to the seamen for clothes, &c. An injunction was at first granted, but it was afterwards dissolved by Lord Chancellor Somers; his Lordship declaring, that he could not stop the seamen's proceeding for their wages; and, that if they recovered against the plaintiff, he had his remedy against his owners.

The suit in the Admiralty Court now going on, the captain made the best defence he was capable of against it; and particularly insisted on, and gave in evidence, the bonds which the seamen had entered into, not to demand any farther wages, until the ship's return to the port of London; but that Court declared these bonds to be unjust, and void in law; and therefore gave sentence against the captain for £695 as the amount of the seamen's wages, for the outward-bound voyage; and which sum he was accordingly obliged to pay.

On the 25th of June 1703, the cause in Chancery was heard before the Lord Keeper Wright; when his Lordship declared his opinion, that the plaintiff, by sealing the charter-party, and taking the bonds from the seamen, had barred himself from any right to his wages, or having any satisfaction from the owners, in respect of the money which he had been compelled to pay the seamen, by the decree of the Admiralty Court; and therefore ordered the bill to stand dismissed.

[139] But the plaintiff having applied for a re-hearing, the cause was accord-