196 FEDEEAIi BEPOBTBB. �longer in force, and the jury were correctly instructed that the shipment of the defendant on this voyage was valid and binding, although not made in the presence of a commis- sioner, master, consignee, or owner. All that is now required for such contracts is that they shall conform to so much of the aet of 1790 as is re-enaoted in this tifle of the Eevised Statutes, and the crew are bound by such engagements. �There is no limitation to the operation of the act of 1874 ; by it, every provision found in the Eevised Statutes respect- ing coasting vessels, which were first enacted in the act of 1872, are repealed, and the resuit therefore must be that all Buch provisions, some of which are of a most just and salutary character, as, for instance, the allowance of wages to the crew to the time of loss in case of shipwreck, are no longer in force. Among others thus repealed are those f oimd in chapter 7 of this title, concerning "oflfences and punishment." By these provisions, which were a re-enactment of section 51 of the act of 1872, the crew were rendered liable to an indictment in case of desertion. We are not aware of any other act of congress which punishes desertion criminally, but under our construction of the act of 1874 we are compelled to hold that chapter 7, of title 53, is no longer applicable to the crews of coasting vessels. The resuit, therefore, is that this defendant, although legally shipped and bound by the articles to com- plete the voyage, was not liable to an indictment for deser- tion. �The verdict must therefore be set aside and a new trial granted. ����
