673 PBDEKAIi EEPOBTEB. �V. The Heinrîch, Crabbe, 226. The trip having ocoupîed a month, it makes no difference which way it is treated. �As to the question of injury : The libellant was directed by the captain, or some other superior officer of the boat, to remove the obstruction from the wheel. It was a perilous undertaking; he used ail ôrdinary care, but was injured. I understand the law to be that where a seaman is injured in the service of the boat, without any fault on his part, he is entitled to recover his fuU wages for the trip or period for ■which he was employed, and the expense incurred in his cure. Neilson \. The Laura, 2 Sawy. 242; The North America, 5 Ben. 486; Morgan v. The Berc Flint, 6 Am. Law Eeg. (N. S.) 707; S. C. 1 Abb. U. S. 126; Sims v. Jackson, 1 Wash. 414; TheNimrod, Ware, 1, 9; The Forest, Id. 420; Harden v. Gor- don, 2 Mass. 541; Reed T. Canfield, 1 Sumn. 195. This is a well-established doctrine of admiralty law; and, the libellant having brought himself within the rule, he is entitled to recover. �There is no dispute as to the fact that the libellant waa severely injured, and, in consequence thereof, unable to per- form his duties as fireman during the remainder of the trip. The evidence shows that he was to receive |35 per month; that the expense of medical attendance amounted to $15, and of ioe, medicines, and other supplies furnished during siekness, $10; in ail, $60; and a decree will accordingly be entered for that amount. ����
