JOHNSON V. BLANCHABD. O!^T �Johnson v. Blanchard and others. �{Diitnci Covrt, S. B. New York. Pebruary 18, 1881.) �1. Beamen'b Wages — Absence fbom Vbssel— Lbft in PoBEiaN Pobt , — Laches— CosTB. �Where the libellant overstayed his leave of absence on shore in a foreign port, and the ship left him and returned to New York, after waiting for him, at an increased expense, beyond the time when the libellant knewshe was to sail, and six years after wages were claimed for the whole voyage back to New York, and $145 for personal efEects left on board, the libellant alleging that he did not exceed his leave of absence, and that the vessel sailed without notice to him : �Hdd, on the evidence, that the libellant went ashore on leave of absence for one hour only, aind so understood it ; that he was left by the vessel through his own fault, and is not entitled to wages for the rest of the voyage ; that his laches in not sooner making his claim known creates s strong presumotion that he knew he was not entitled to such wages; �Further hAd, that not having been treated as a deserter he could recover $11.09 for unpald wages up to the time when he left, and $4 proceeds received by the vessel for his clothing ; that having, m addi- tion t() a sOiall claim for wages, claimed a large gum to whlch he waa not entitled, costs would be refused to the libellant. The Louuiana, 4 Fed. Ref. 751, and cases cited. �In Admiralty. �J. J. Maclin, for libellant. �J. A. Deady, for defendant. �Choate, D. j. This is a suit in personam for wages against �the owners of the bark American Lloyd's. �The libellant shipped in New York in July, 1874, on a voyage to Stet- tin and back to New York, as second mate. The libel alleges that while the vessel was in the port of Stettln, with the permission of the master, he went ashore at about 6 o'clock in the evening, to return the next mom- ing, and that while he was so absent on leave, and without notice to him, the vessel left the port, taking all his clothing and personal effects, ar- riving in New York about November 15, 1874 ; that the libellant, belng left entirely destitute, was obliged to seek other employment, and only arrived in New York within a few days before flling his libel, whlch was on the seventh day of June, 1880. The libellant claims four months' wages up to the return of the vessel to New York, amounting to $150 ; and also, for his clothing and personal efiects, $145. The defence is that the libellant was allowed to go ashore for an hour ; that he knew the vessel was expected to sail the next morning at 4 o'clock ; that the vessel was ready to sail at that time, but the master waited for the libellant, who had ��� �
