Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/766

752 FBDSBAIi BEFOBTEB. �was running, but it is assumed by both counsel that the man- ner of the libellant's discharge, at the pleasure of his em- ployer, was legal, and there seems to have been no signing of articles. I shall, therefore, assume that the vessel had net been employed upon a foreign voyage, and that the case la not one oovered by the acts of Congress relating to the time and mannçr of paying the seamen. ïhe only point made for the claimants is that the libellant should not have costs, because be made no proper demand for bis wages before bringing his suit. I think, however, a case is not made out for refusing costs. If the agreement was such that the ofiS,- cers of the vessel were entitled to discharge the man at pleas- ure, they were bound to be ready to pay him at the time of his discharge. His wages were due at once and should have been paid witbout any delay. The Schooner David Faust, 1 Ben. 187 ; Betts' Adm. Pr. 61. If any demand was neces- sary, it was enough to make a demand of the officer who dis- cbarged him and who had employed him. No case is cited in whieh costs, in a suit for wages, have been refused simply upon the ground that the suit was brought after the discharge of the seaman and witbout a demand. The cases cited by the claimant's counsel as authorities for refusing costs are cases in which the seamen, being entitled to a trifling sum for wages, brought suit, tacking on to their claim for wages, which they had not demanded, some exorbitant and unf ounded claim, on which they failed to recover. The Steam-boat Swal- low, 1 Ole. 11 ; The Ship Moslem, Id. 381. I see, therefore, no Bufficient reason for refusing costs. �Decree for libellant for $25.27, with interest from August 24, 1880, and costa. ����