Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 4.djvu/163
EIGI-ITEEN TH CONGRESS. Sess. II. Ch. 65. 1825. 117 Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That, if any master or commander &O*` ¤;_¤Y m°·¤:£}'» of any ship or vessel, belonging, in whole, or in part, to any citizen or ufgggsefffgylong citizens of the United States, shall, during his being abroad, maliciously, ing in whois or and without justifiable cause, force any officer, or marincr of such ship i¤ pm *9}* ¤i¤· or vessel, on shore, or leave him behind, in any foreign port or place, or ;?.';h°;r§::;:::° refiise to bring home again, all such of the officers and mariners of such Smeg, \vhi]_g ship or vessel, whom he carried out with him, as are in a condition to abroad, whv return, and willing to retum, when he shall be ready to proceed in his 5**%:2 “‘;?;l homeward voyage, every master or commander, so offending, shall, on ,},,,,6 {0 1,;.,, conviction thereof, be punished by fine, not exceeding five hundred dol- him behind in lars, or by imprisonment, not exceeding six months, according to the aggra- gw iglggn P°“ vation of the oil`enceZ(a P ' Sec. 1] . And be it ther enacted, That, if any person or persons, _0l'sny person shall, wiliiilly and maliciously, set on fire, or burn, or otherwise destroy ;;’;lY“;2’>g'l_‘; ::1** or cause to be set on fire, or burnt, or otherwise destroyed, or aid, procure, sm; or ""eyy abct, or assist in setting on fire, or burning or otherwise destroying, any of me United ship or vessel of war of the United States, afloat on the high seas, or in Sita? zH°°‘ °“ . . . . . al any arm of the sea, or in any river, haven, creek, basin or bay within the ;1,°u;,gu:: ofadmiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of the sea, within feioniously stealing a. quantity of merchandise, belonging to the ship Bristol, the ship being in distress and cast away on a shoal of the sea on the coast of New York. The indictment was founded on the 9th section of the act, entitled "An act more eifectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and forother purp0ses," approved March 3, 1825. The goods were taken above high-water mark, upon the beach, in the county of Queens, in the state ofNew York. Held, that the 0H`ence committed was within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. The United States v. Coombs, 12 Peters 72. In cases purely dependent on the locality of the act done, the admiralty jurisdiction is limited to the sea, and to the tide water, as tar as the tide flows. Mixed cases may arise, and often do arise, where the act and services done are of a mixed nature, as when salvage services are performed, partlyon tidewater and partly on shore, for the preservation of the property; in which case the admiralty jurisdiction has been constantly exercised, to the extent of decreeing salvage. Ibid. The offence of larceny is not punishable under the act 1790, ch. 9, unless committed in a place under the ole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States; and to bring the case within the statute, there must be an averment of such sole and exclusive jurisdiction in the indictment. The United States v. Edmond Davis, 5 Mason’s C. C. R. 356. “ Personal goods" in that statutedocs not include chosesin action,the1atter not being the subject of larceny at common law. Ibid. Where larceny is committed in a place not under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, it may be yet punishable under the third section of the act of 1825, ch. 66. Ibid. Ofences are punishable under that section according to the state laws, where they arc committed under circumstances, or in places, in which, before that act, no court of the United States had authority to punish' them. Ilrid. _ _ It seems, that a reservation in a cession of “ concurrent jurisdiction" to serve state process, civil and criminal in the ceded place, does not exclude the exclusive legislation, or exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, over the ceded place. It merely operates as a condition of the grant. Ibid. See United States v. Kessler, Baldwin’s C. C. R. 15. (a) The crimes act of 1825, ch. 66, sec. 10, enumerates three distinct ollences: (l) maliciously and wilfully, and without justifiable cause, forcing an officer or mariner on shore, in a foreign port, or (2) maliciously, or without justifiable cause, leaving any officer or mariner behind in a foreign port, or (3) muliciously, or without justifiable cause, refusing to bring home again all the officers or mariners of' the ship, in a condition to return and willing to return. It is not necessary to complete the first or second of the enumerated offences, that the officer or mariner should bein a condition to return or willing to return. These latter words apply only to the trial of the enumerated offences. The United States v. Netcher, l Story’s C. C. R. 307. Where a mariner applied for a discharge, which was refused by the master, and he thereupon used abusive language to the master, for which he was imprisoned by the master, so that he was unable to return, and the ship sailed without him, it was held, that the leaving him behind was an 08'ence under the crimes act of 1825, ch. 66, sec. 10. Ibid. Indictment for malicious1y, and without justifiable cause,forcingaseam¤.n on shore, in a foreign port, against the crimes act of l825, ch. 66, sec. 10. “MaIiciouslyl,” in the statute, means wilfully, against a knowledge of duty; (justifiable cause°’ does not mean suc n cause as the known polio of the Ame. rican laws on the subject contemplates as a cause of moral necessity, for the safety of the ship and crew, or the due performance of the voyage. The United States 1:. Tha. deus Collin, 1 Sumner’s C. C. R. 394. Under the 10th section of the act of 1825, ch. 66, the forcing a. mariner on shore must be done, not only withoutjustiiiable cause, but also malicious1y, tojustify a conviction. If done under 1 mistaken sense 0f duty, it is not a case for conviction. The United States 1:. Spencer Ruggles, 5 Mason’s C. C. R. 192. “Ma1icious1y,>> in the statute, means with a wilful disregard of right and duty, or doing the act, against a man’s own conviction of duty. Ibid. A master of a ship has authority to confine his seamen in acommon jail in 0. foreign port, For offences and misconduct in extreme cases; and when the proper correction and punishment cannot be effected on ship-board. Ibid.
