I think the libelant is entitled to a maritime lien for his services as bartender. There could, оf course, have been no doubt under the early decisions that admiralty would not have taken jurisdiction over such a claim, for by a great number of authorities the lien was limited to services which were in aid' of the navigation of the ship or the prеservation of the-ship. In 1815 Lord Stbwell refused to allow the lien even of á surgeon. The Lоrd Hobart, 2 Dodson, 100. Judge Peters in The New Jersey, Fed. Cas. No. 5,233, made the same ruling- in Í806; and more recent cases are not infrequent to the effect that the lien is limited to sеrvices in aid of the navigation of the ship. Trainor v. Boat Superior,
0While the cases to the contrary are few in number, there is some unquestioned authority for the proposition that, v/herever the services are in aid of the purposes of the voyage, a lien arises, even though they аre for the navigation of the ship or its preservation. The Ocean-Spray,
“AH'hands employed upon the vessel, еxcept the master, are entitled to a lien ii their services are in furtheranсe of the main objects of the enterprise in which she is engaged-.”
No doubt the learned justice would have modified this by the assumption that the services were rendеred upon the ship. See, also, The Sultana, 1 Brown’s Adm. 13, Fed. Cas. No. 13,602, which seems, howevеr, to disagree with The Emma, Fed. Cas. No. 18,218. There is a dictum of the .Circuit Court of Appeals, likewise, in Saylor v. Taylor,
Section 4612 of the Revised Stаtutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3120), while not. controlling, is an indication of the breadth of meaning which Cоngress, at least, means to put upon the word-“seamen,” and if the statute did in terms aрply, there could be no question of its including the services of the libelant in this case.
As I can see in principle no reason why there should be an artificial limitatiоn of rights to those engaged in the navigation of the ship, to. the exclusion of othеrs who equally further the purposes of her voyage, and as there is.at least sоme competent authority for the broader construction of the rule, I shall dеcide that the libelant has a lien for his wages as bartender, and direct a reference to compute the damages.
In the case of The j. S. Warden, for thе year 1908, I cannot allow the libelant anything for the period before the ship went into commission, which was on July 4th, unless the master says that his services were of a maritime character. The Hattie Thomas (D. C.)
In regard to The Mt. Desert I decide that the libelant was not kept there out оf charity. Wily he should have been employed is not clear, but the ship’s time-book satisfies me that he was in fact regarded as employed. The master will compute the time and rate in accordance with the showing of the book. The master will аlso determine the character of the services during the days when the ship did not make
In regard to The Orient, between May 27th and June 26th, the master will also determine the character of the services during the days when the ship was not on excursions, as in the case of The Mt. Desert/
Prepare a decree to compute damages.