THE SCHOONEE JEFFBRSON BORDBN. 303 �evidence. It is difficult to determine this question, but as a resuit of ail the evidence on this point the court thinks that Captain Patterson, master of the Jefferson Borden, did tell the crew to go ashore; that he did it in anger; and that the crew 80 understood him. The time and the manner in which they left the vessel is consistent with this view of the case. The court thinks this fact is established, but it does not be- lieve that the captain intended thereby to dischai-ge his crew. His own conduct is inconsistent with such a theory; for he made provision for their return, both as to food and lodging, and after the space of 48 hours, after their absence from the vessel, he took proceedings to have them arrested as desert- ers, in which he must have known he could not succeed if he had voluntarily discharged them. �It is evident to the court, from ail the testimony in this cause, that these libellants — two of them in particular, George Henry and Edward Brown — were insolent, lazy, and disobe- dient to orders; and wbile their conduct did not amount to mutiny, it would have been full justification in the captain discharging them from his ship. It does not follow, therefore» that, if they were discharged, they are entitled to claim pay for the time or. times they negleeted to perform the duty; for in section 4528 of the Eevised Statutes of the United States congress evidently intended that no seaman neglect- ing to do his work should receive pay for that period, and in pursuance of that section the court feels compelled to disallow the wages of these seamen during the time of their neglect to work. Henry was absent on Sunday ail day, Monday until near sundown, and ref used to work on Tuesday, Wednesday, and part of Thursday, and his wages for those days will be disallowed. The other three libellants refused to work on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and their wages will be disallowed for those days. �The court will not allow the $17 claimed for the four sea- men by the amended libel as one month's extra wages, under section 4527, because it thinks that such discharge was "not without fault on their paits." ��� �
