Arrowsmith v Le Mesurier
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 1806 |
| Date | 13 June 1806 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 127 E.R. 605
Common Pleas Division
B00, Is PUL, R.) 210. ARROWSMITH v. LE MESURIER 1O5 privilege of carrying out investments to the settlement to which they are bound, and there making the hest advantage of them in their power, it would be absurd to say that such investments were not the subject of a legal insurance. My Brother Marshall, in his book (p. 73, vol. i.), when treating this subject, does not seem to have imagined that the prohibition as to insurance of wages extended to the captain as well as the seamen ; for he commences his observations by these words, " to prevent the desertion of seamen." So the 8 Geo. 1, c. 27, was passed to prevent masters paying seamen above one moiety of their wages due to them beyond the seas. Indeed the regulation is founded altogether on the marine law, which does not allow the mariners any wages unless the ship earn freight, and which law would be completely evaded if the mariners could insure their wages. Considering, therefore, that a clear distinction exists in law with respect to the insurance of wages between the captain and the mariners, it is not necessary to discuss the effect which would result from the facts of this case as establishing the captain to have acted in the double character of captain and supercargo. R0OKE J. I am of the same opinion. This policy being against the perils of the sea and capture, and not against the loss of the slaves by death during the voyage, no objection arises to it as contravening the policy of the laws passed to secure proper care and attention to the [210] slaves. The captain's "commission and privileges," therefore, appear to me to be the subject of a legal insurance. CHAMBRE J. The common laws follows the marine law in not allowing wages to be due till the safe arrival of the ship. This rule applies to the mariners, but there is no decision in the marine law prohibiting the captain from recovering his wages up to the time his ship is captured. Indeed the captain and the mariners are treated as very different subjects of consideration in the marine law ; the former are supposed to be persons of trust and confidence with the owners, and to be bound to them by the terms of their contract, nor is there any fear that they will run away or desert ; and so far is the idea of personal trust and confidence between the owners and the master carried, that the latter has not, as the mariners have, the choice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the Application of Ibrahima Jollah) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
...with an instruction or request to remain in a particular place does not amount to imprisonment, Mr Tam relied on the case of Arrowsmith v Le Mesurier (1806) 2 Bos. and Pul. NR 211, 127 ER 605. In that case, a constable went with a warrant to the plaintiff's house. He showed it to the plain......
-
R (on the application of Jalloh (formerly Jollah)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...13 Voluntary compliance is not enough, even if the request is backed up with a warrant which could be executed by force. He cites Arrowsmith v Le Mesurier (1806) 2 Bos & P (NR) 211, 127 ER 605, where Sir James Mansfield CJ held that there was no imprisonment when a constable simply showed ......
-
Davis v Attorney General et Al
...and not as a result of compulsion cannot be said to be under arrest. Arrowsmith v. Le Mezurier (1806) 2 Bos. and Pul. (N.R) 211; 127 E.R. 605. In Rice v. Connelly [1966] 2 All E.R. 649 it was held: In the absence of a legal duty to assist the Police, a citizen is entitled to decline to answ......