THE ABOLPH. 501 �ate them better than the respondents will be eompensated by the balance, when the actual labor is considered. �In The Concordia, decided in this court in 1856, with faots Bomewhat resembling this, -the court gave 8 per cent, of the salvage. I consider 5 per cent, for the libellants as fair a division as can be made between the parties, and the decree will follow accordingly. ���The Adolph. �{District Court, 8. D. N'eu) York. February 15, 1881.) Bbambn's Wagbs— Extka Wages— Swedkh Code— Voyage Aban- �DONBD IN A FORBIGN POKT— MaESHALLING ASSETS— RbMITTMG �Sbamen to Suit in Pbksonam— Mastbr's Lien. �The Swedish bark A., being in custody of tihe marslial under'libel for collision, filed in this district by an Insurance Company, a IVench corporation, who insured the cargo of the colliding vessel, and an appeal having been taken frofli the deci'ee dismissing the libel, the owners were informed by the maater of the facts, and they instruc'ted him not to bond the vessel, and to look to the Veesel for paymeiit of the crew. - �The toaster and seamen thereupon libelled her for wages ; a por- tion of the crew having been discharged oh their consent, the master, mate, and two seamen remaining on the vessel till the trial of their suit for wages. The company, as intervenors, oppose the daim of the master and seamen. �Held, that the master simply discharged his duty to the owners in keeping the crew during the temporary delay, until defihite instruc- tions were received from the owners to abandon the voyage ; that the voyage having been broken up in a f oreign port, the seamen were entitled to three months' extra wages, under the Code of Sweden, whichshould begin to run from the time the master received instruc- tions that he was not to be put in funds to pay the crew. As to them, this amounted to an abahdonment of the voyage. �Also hdd, that this i9>not a case for marshalling assets by declin- ing jurisdiction of the seamen's claim for wages, thus remitting them to a suit against the owners in the home port. The admiralty court will not thus exercise its discretion where the remedy suggested is likely to be so delayed that the creditor's relief may thereby be seri- ously prejudiced ; that no equity exists in favor of the intervenors, appellants from the adverse decree of this court, who, being a foreign ��� �
