£02 FEDBBAL BBPOBTBB. �any court would be -warranted in proceeding agaînst it as Buch. Buoh attachments, and disputes concerning them, are very common under the laws of the state, yet no case is known where any person has been proceeded against as for a contempt, or otherwise criminally, for violating such an attachaient. In any view which can be taken of it, the mo- tion must be denied. Motion denied, without prejudice to any Buii. ���Smith v. The Schooner J. C. King. �'Bùtriet Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. August 2, 1880.) �1, Beambn — Wagbs — Keftjsal to Woek on Sundat. — A searaan upon a echooner in the harbor of Frankfort, Michigan, where she was towed to reoeive a cargo of lumber, cannot refuse to work on Sunday, in loading the schooner, where the towing veseel is net ahle to enter the harbor by reason of an insufflciency of water, and is lying outside in the lake, awaiting the schooner, and is in & place of danger. �Wiiere the maater of the schooner was of opinion that it Tras neces- sary, for the safety of the towing vessel, that the loading of the schooner (begun on Friday) should be completed on Sunday, and or- dered the work to be done, it was the duty of the crews to obey. �In this case, hM, that a seaman refusing to work on Sunday was Tlghtfully expelled from the schooner, and forfeited his wages for his disobedience. �In Admiralty. Libel for wages, etc. �Clark Olds, for libellant. �F. F. Marshall, for respondent. �AcHEsoN, D. J. On June 18, 1879, the steam barge James Davidson, having in tow the schooners Orgarita and J. C. King, left Chicago, bound to Frankfort, Michigan, to load part of her tow with lumber, thence to Cheboygan, and thence to Buffalo or Tonawanda. The libellant was a seaman upon the schooner King, and by the shipping articles, which are in the usual form, he.and the rest of the crew agreed "to work on any vessel in our tow, and on any lighter that may be used to load or lighten our vessels, and to work any place ����
