EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS. Sess. II. Ch. 65.

1825.

117

Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That, if any master or commanderof any ship or vessel, belonging, in whole, or in part, to any citizen orcitizens of the United States , shall, during his being abroad, maliciously,and without justifiable cause, force any officer, or mariner of such shipor vessel, on shore, or leave him behind, in any foreign port or place, orrefuse to bring home again, all such of the officers and mariners of suchship or vessel, whom he carried out with him, as are in a condition toreturn, and willing to return, when he shall be ready to proceed in hishomeward voyage, every master or commander, so offending, shall, onconviction thereof, be punished by fine, not exceeding five hundred dol-lars, or by imprisonment, not exceeding six months, according to the aggra-vation of the offence.(a)

Sf.c. 11. And be it further enacted, That, if any person or persons,shall, wilfully and maliciously, set on fire, or burn, or otherwise destroyor cause to be set on fire, or burnt, or otherwise destroyed, or aid, procure,abet, or assist in setting on fire, or burning or otherwise destroying, anyship or vessel of war of the United States , afloat on the high seas, or inany arm of the sea, or in any river, haven, creek, basin or bay within theadmiralty jurisdiction of the United States , and out of the jurisdiction of

feloniously stealing a quantity of merchandise, belonging to the ship Bristol, the ship being in distressand cast away on a shoal of the sea on the coast of New York . The indictment was founded on the 9thsection of the act, entitled “An act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimesagainst the United States , and forother purposes,” approved March 3, 1825. The goods were taken abovehigh-water mark, upon the beach, in the county of Queens, in the state of New York . Held, thatthe offence 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 thesea, and to the tide water, as far as the tide flows. Mixed cases may arise, and often do arise, wherethe act and services done are of a mixed nature, as when salvage services are performed, partly on tide-water and partly on shore, for the preservation of the property ; m which case the admiralty jurisdic-tion 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 underthe sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States ; and to bring the case within the statute, theremust be an averment of such sole and exclusive jurisdiction in the indictment. The United Statesv. Edmond Davis, 5 Mason’s C. C. R. 356.

“Personal goods” in that statute does not include choses in action, the latter not being the subject oflarceny at common law. Ibid.

Where larceny is committed in a place not under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the UnitedStates , it may be yet punishable under the third section of the act of 1825, ch. 66. Ibid.

Offences are punishable under that section according to the state laws, where they are committed undercircumstances, or in places, in which, before that act, no court of the United States had authority topunish them. Ibid.

It seems, that a reservation in a cession of “ concurrent jurisdiction” to serve state process, civil andcriminal in the ceded place, does not exclude the exclusive legislation, or exclusive jurisdiction of theUnited 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 offences: (1) maliciously andwilfully, 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) maliciously, or without justifiable cause, refusing to bring home again all the officers or mariners ofthe ship, in a condition to return and willing to return. It is not necessary to complete the first orsecond of the enumerated offences, that the officer or mariner should be in a condition to return orwilling to return. These latter words apply only to the trial of the enumerated offences. The UnitedStates v. Netcher, 1 Story’s C. C. R. 307.

Where a mariner applied for a discharge, which was refused by the master, and he thereupon usedabusive language to the master, for which he was imprisoned by the master, so that he was unable toreturn, and the ship sailed without him, it was held, that the leaving him behind was an offence underthe crimes act of 1825, ch. 66, sec. 10. Ibid.

Indictment for maliciously, and without justifiable cause, forcing a seaman on shore, in a foreign port,against the crimes act of 1825, ch. 66, sec. 10. “Maliciously,” in the statute, means wilfully, againsta knowledge of duty ; “ justifiable cause” does not mean such a cause as the known policy 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 v. Thaddeus Coffin, 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, notonly without justifiable cause, but also maliciously, to justify a conviction. If done under a mistaken senseof duty, it is not a case for conviction. The United States v. Spencer Ruggles, 5 Mason’s C. C. R. 192.

“Maliciously,” 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 a common jail in a foreign port, for offencesand misconduct in extreme cases; and when the proper cortection and punishment cannot be effectedon ship-board. Ibid.

Of any master,&c., of any shipor vessel belong-ing in whole orin part to a citi-zen or citizensof the UnitedStates , whileabroad, whoshall force anyofficer, &c., onshore to leavehim behind inany foreign portor place.

Of any personwilfully,&c. set-ting on fire anyship or vesselof the UnitedStates afloat onthe high seas,or any arm ofthe sea, within