OLSEN ». SCHOONEB EDWIN POST. 317 �delphia — a construction which would be oppressive upon the rights of the seamen. �It appears from the evidence that the seamen served on board the said schooner not only during the period of six months, but also for several months additional, which bas been computed and included in the report of the admiralty commissioner in this case. The court is of opinion that they are entitled to this additional amount upon the basis of quantum meruit; and there is no more reasonable method of determining the amount due than by reference to the sum agreed by the master to be paid them for similar services immediately preceding, and which were satisfactory to both parties. These amounts will be accordingly added to the six months' wages earned. The court does not consider that the crew forfeited any part of their wages by the abstraction of a few bottles of beer on a very hot day, for which they ofiered payment to the captain. It no doubt was an offence against strict discipline on board ship, but was not of such a serious character as to forfeit wages, and partioularly as the master exonerated these seamen from any other depredations on the ship's property during their stay on board. The court can- not accede to the proposition that those seamen forfeited their wages by desertion of the vessel in leaving her without assistance in a position of danger. The evidence in the case does not sustain such a conclusion ; on the contrary, it shows distinctly that the libellants left her in a place of security for winter quarters selected by the master himself. They left her only for the purpose of obtaining their wages, which were long past due, and under such circumstances as the court thinks justified them in leaving without incurring the charge of desertion. �The report of the commissioner, fixing the amount of wages due each respective libellant, is hereby approved and adopted. Let a decree be entered accordingly. The costs in this case to be taxed are to be paid by the respondent. The court does not think that the amendments were of such a character as to prejudice the respondent to such an extent as to entitle him to costs. Where one party is so misled by ��� �
