Open main menu

Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/144

This page needs to be proofread.


I38 Casas ruled and adjudged in the r 2. of du . E wilful and inexeufable de re is a fs breaef 79 of dutzandvgounts to barratry. ILid.93l?al:uis faidjilsintended , to benefit his owners as well as himfelf; but to confine:. this as an excufe would be produéiive of fraud. Thr. maflzer may eaiily pretend great zeal for his owner’s interelts, and yet facrifice them to promote his own. In the definition given by Parke, it is faid p. 94, it mull: be “ tending to his own benefit": This does not mean exchyfve benelit. T e malier runs no rilk himfelf by go- ing our, but he might get {go by it; while he hazarded his owner’s infurance, the mere premium of which was almoflz _ e equal to the price he-was to get, for giving chafe to the Fly. ’ The words of Park, p. 94. are ¢•If it is for the benefit of his ‘ owners,and notjir bi: own bengit, it is no barratry.” But here the departure was with a view tc his own private advantage. He facrifices the policy, wages, provifions and the fafery of the for a paltry expectation of private A mere error mig cxcufe ; but here it is very different, and if the principlebe ella- blifhed there will be no fecurity for owners. The cafes put in ·the books, fhew that the principle contended for by the defend- ants is not found. Deferring a {hip is barratry. Park 93-—•°So when the malter of a {hip defrauds the owners by carrying the fhip a diderent courfe." Pg?. Dr}?. His intercli: is out of the queltion. So failing out of port without payment of the duties, is barratry, though the mafter gains nothing by it: And ]uflice Baller feemed to think (Parke [03.63) that breach of an embargo (tho' perhaps done with a view to the owner's intereft) was bar- ratry. But when he has his own gain in view, the cafe is firong- er; nothing but pure intentions can purge the a€t : And in Vellege {5* W beeler, Parle noo, {trefs is laid on the circumfiancc, that the mailer was aéiing for his own benefit. On the part of the defendant, it was urged, that here was a plain deviation (lated, and unlefs the departure was clearly an act of barratry, judgment mult be for the defendant. They faid,that in allthe cafes refpe&ingbarratry,fome circumltances of fraud, grofs negligence, or evil and criminal conduét towards the 0wners,werc {lated. r 7-¢m.R¢’P.323» It muli: be more than devi- tion ; it mufl be fomerhing crimina1.ParLe 93. 1Pg/I.Dic7. I36. 2:4. Coup. 154- All define it tobe a trick, fraud, or cheat, upon the owners. '1`he definition, in Parke 94, is a good one; and we contend it muft be for the exclulive benefit of the captain to make it barratry. There is no cafe which hints, that the captain may not conne€t his own intcreit with that of the owners. In Slammer ·¤. Brown. 2 Stru. 7 173, it mult be fomething of a crimi- nal nature, as well as a breach of contract. lf he millook bony]- Q, the owners mult bear the lofs. The want of confent on the gan of the infured is not fuilicient of itfelf : So is Park 335. he owners abide by all the mifcondufl of the captain, but fuch ai