S30 FEDERAL REPOfiTEB. �The Hudson. {District Court, W. B. Pennsylmnia. ApHl 21, 1881.) �1. HanDS on StEAM-BoAT — CoMPIiBTION OP Vor AGB — Unloadino �Cabgo. �Libellants were etnpl03'ed as hands on a steam-boat, on a trip from Pittsburgli to Cincinnati and back. They had nothing to do with tiie navigation of the boat, but the handling of the cargo was part of their einployment. Held, that tfae^ had no right to quit the boat as soon as she was fastened to the wharf at Fittsburgb, but that it was their duty to remain and assist in unioading her cargo. �2. 8ame— Deductions phom Wagbs. �Held, further, that the reipondents could deduct from libellants' wages the reasonable sums necessarily paid for the discharge bf such cargo. �3. Pbactice— Paymbnt to JHaiishal— Fayment into Cioukt— Costs. �In Admiral-ty. �Albert York Smith, for libellant. �Isaac S. Van Voorhis, contra. �AcHESON, D. J. The amount in controversy here is small, but to the libellants who sue for their wages the matter is of <;onsequence. Moreover, the principle involved is important. The case, therefore, deserves and bas received careful consid- eration. The better opinion seems to be that unless there is «ome express or implied agreement or established usage to dispense with their further services, seamen are bound to remain with the ship upon the completion of the voyage and assist in the delivery of her cargo, if made in a reasonable time. 1 Conk. Adm, 131 ; Dixon v. The Cyrus, 2 Pet. Adm. 413 ; Cloutman v. Tunison, 1 Sumn. 377. �Here, there were no shipping articles or express contract. The libellants were employed as banda on the steam-boat Hud- son, on a trip from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati and back. They had nothing to do with the navigation of the boat, but the handling of the cargo was part of their employment. Under "the evidence, I think, they had no right to quit the boat as soon as she was fastened to the wharf at Pittsburgh, but that it was their duty to assist in unioading her. This they ob- ��� �
