[123] 224-Summoning of Merchants As Witnesses in Disputes Between the Patron of the Vessel and His Crew.

If the crew becomes involved in a dispute with the master of a vessel over matters that have not been entered into the ship's register, the merchants aboard the vessel present during such a dispute may be called as witnesses both during the voyage as well as after the voyage has been completed. They may offer testimony in favor of the master of the vessel or the crew, provided that they are disinterested parties to this dispute and that they will not gain or lose anything because of the evidence they give in testimony.

If, on the other hand, the crew of the vessel would be involved with [124] the merchants aboard the vessel, the patron of the vessel may be called upon to give testimony in this matter after the completion of the journey, provided he is a disinterested party to this dispute.

Further, one sailor can be called to be a witness for another sailor after the completion of a voyage, provided that he is a disinterested party in this dispute in which he is called upon to give testimony and that he shall in no way benefit or suffer after offering such evidence.

Further, the crew may testify in any issue during the voyage, either in behalf of the patron of the vessel or the merchants in the following circumstances only: it can testify in case it had been necessary to dump cargo overboard, or if because of a storm the vessel had been wrecked or foundered on shoals, because in such situations it would have been impossible for the clerk of the vessel to enter these matters into the register of the vessel, which under normal circumstances would have provided the necessary evidence of any decisions or agreements that had been made aboard the vessel regarding these matters. ⁽¹⁾

This article was written in order that the crew would be able to attest to the happenings under such circumstances, even though the clerk had no opportunity to make any entries in the ship's register concerning these matters, because otherwise the patron of the vessel could deny all the agreements that had been made on such occasions which would be disadvantageous to him, and would only testify to matters that were beneficial to him, and the merchants would act similarly in their relations with the patron of the vessel.

For this reason the crew can be called as witnesses to testify to incidents that had happened during the journey, in order that there could arise no attempt at deceit. Under no other circumstances can the crew be called to give testimony in anything that happened aboard the vessel during the voyage, whether it would be on behalf of the patron of the vessel of the merchants, regardless of the nature of the dispute.

225-Testimony given by the Crew

If the merchants aboard the vessel engaged in any kind of dispute amongst themselves and called upon the crew to witness the difference of opinion, the crew may during the voyage as well as after the voyage has been completed be called upon to testify to what they had been [125] called to witness, provided that the crew has no personal interest in the matter, and that the crew acts impartially in regard to both of the litigants, and has not received and accepted any honorarium or gifts; from either of the parties to the dispute. If the crew had attempted to benefit one of the disputants through its testimony or if the crew had accepted an honorarium to do this, and this can be proved, the crew shall pay all the costs and damages suffered by the party against whom they have perjured themselves.

In addition, the aggrieved party can ruin their reputation and prosecute them in the courts of law, and even more importantly, no credence would ever again be given to any testimony they would give; if any person called them perjurers, no court of law could punish such a person for libel, no matter how many witnesses the former would present to establish their action for libel, but rather those who gave such testimony would be punished doubly by the courts for giving such testimony.

This article was written because very often merchants find themselves in circumstances when only the members of the crew are present during a dispute or when they conclude agreements or carry on a discussion. Thus, if it should happen that one of the merchants wishes to recant on an agreement he made, and the other merchant with whom he made the agreement demands that the former carry out the terms of their agreement, the merchant who refused and denied the existence of such an agreement could cause the other merchant to suffer serious damages. Thus, in such instances the crew of the vessel should offer testimony in disputes among the merchants in order to prevent any opportunity for fraud and deceit among the merchants.

226-Wages Paid the Navigator and Other Members of the Crew

A patron of a vessel who, for a specific voyage, engages the services of a navigator, whose wages will be determined at a later date, shall pay him at least as much as he pays his best officer of the foredeck or another member of the crew and even much more dependent upon the fitness and ability of the navigator.

If it should happen that some other members of the crew were engaged on the same basis, the patron of the vessel shall pay them wages based on how they perform or will perform and on the degree of their usefulness. The exact amount of their wages shall be determined by the navigator and the clerk under an oath administered by the patron, that they will determine the amount of the wages to be paid the crew members who had been hired under such conditions, justly and honestly according to their worth. The navigator and the clerk cannot act in this matter arbitrarily or be motivated by hate or [126] a promise of some gain made to them, or in order to harm some member of the crew serving aboard the vessel for undetermined wages; they shall under the threat of punishment for perjury give the patron of the vessel an honest estimate of the amount of wages he should pay such members of the crew. The patron is required to pay the wages determined by the clerk and the navigator under oath and cannot raise any objections in this matter.

227-Damage Caused to a Vessel Due to Lack of Proper Equipment Aboard
If the patron had anchored his vessel near the shore, in port, or some other place, and the merchants aboard warn and caution him that he should provide a stout hawser to anchor the vessel, and the patron moored the vessel with a weak and unsatisfactory hawser, or if he did not have the proper equipment aboard the vessel to do this, although he had claimed that he did, and due to this the merchants suffer some damage, the patron of the vessel shall be required to reimburse them for their losses.

If the patron was without the means to pay for these damages, the vessel shall be sold. If the amount realized from the sale of the vessel was insufficient to pay these damages, and the patron has other property, it shall be sold to satisfy the merchants, with this reservation, that the crew will not lose any wages due them. The shareholders of the vessel shall not be required to share in the payment of these damages beyond the amount they had invested in the vessel.

This article was written because many patrons of vessels skimp on the equipment and do not equip their vessel properly, thus the vessel itself and the cargo aboard that belonged to the merchants will perish.

228-A Vessel Lost in the Territory of the Saracens

If a patron sailed into the territory of the Saracens and due to misfortune, storm, or action of armed enemy ships the vessel perished, he will not be required to pay the crew any wages, unless the vessel was lost at the same location where he had been paid the lading fees. If he had received such fees, he shall pay the crew full wages due them; if he had reduced the lading fees for the merchants, the crew shall accept a reduction in wages in proportion to the reduction of the lading fees received; if the patron owed the crew wages for another voyage, he shall pay them, as had been stated in one of the previous articles. ⁽²⁾

127] The patron who lost his vessel under the circumstances mentioned above shall not be required to furnish either transportation or subsistence for the crew until such time as they reach a Christian territory, because he had lost everything he possessed, and often even more than he possessed.

This article was written because a patron who lost his vessel is not required to furnish transportation or subsistence until they reach a Christian nation, because he does not even have the means to provide these necessities for himself.

229-Circumstances Under Which the Patron of the Vessel Shall Secure the Approval of the Shareholders of the Vessel Before He Accepts Cargo for Shipment

A patron who contracts to carry cargo destined for the territory of the Saracens or other dangerous places, should, if there are any shareholders present at the site where the vessel is being cargoed, receive their approval before he takes such cargo aboard. If he received their approval, he may proceed to load such cargo aboard, and none of the shareholders shall voice any opposition. If he should cargo the vessel without their approval, the shareholders may protest and sell the vessel at auction because the patron did not ask their permission. If, however, he had asked their permission, the shareholders cannot sell the vessel before he returns from the journey.

If the shareholders force the auction of the vessel that the patron had cargoed without their permission, and due to the sale of the vessel or for any other reason the patron is relieved from the command of the vessel, and the shareholders regain control of the vessel, the vessel shall make the journey as had been agreed with the merchant who had leased the vessel or had arranged to ship cargo aboard it with the party who had been the master of the vessel when the agreement was made. Let all who buy shares in a vessel remember that all the agreements made by the patron of a vessel shall be carried out.

However, if a patron of a vessel finds himself in the territory where none of the shareholders are present, he may use his judgment in accepting any cargo for shipment to any destination. If the vessel was damaged, none of the shareholders shall make any claims. On the other hand, if the patron of the vessel gambled away, squandered, or lost the vessel in any other way due to his negligence, the shareholders will be able to press their claims against him.

Further, a patron who accepts cargo for shipment to a Christian territory shall not be required to ask the permission of the shareholders to undertake such a journey, if he does not wish to ask their permission, [128] and no shareholder shall attempt to bring about the sale of the vessel that had been engaged to carry cargo, until after the completion of the journey and return of the vessel. If the patron, upon the demand of the shareholders, must provide them with a guarantor that he will not change the course of the vessel during the voyage until he returns the vessel for their disposition, the guarantor shall be liable only to the degree decreed by the customs and the laws of the sea.

If it should happen that the patron contracts to carry cargo to the location mentioned above, and the shareholders are conveniently at hand, and regardless of whether they know about this trip or are ignorant of it or whether the patron informed them about it, and they do not oppose such a voyage, they will not be able to lodge any demands for damages later, if the vessel should have been lost or damaged on such a voyage, the patron of the vessel shall not be held liable for any consequences that had occurred.

230-Ransom Paid or Other Arrangements Made With Armed Enemy Vessels

A patron who encounters armed enemy vessels in the port, the open sea, or any other place may negotiate and conclude an agreement with the officers and the admiral of such naval units as to the amount of ransom he shall be required to pay them, in order that they would not harm him or anything aboard the vessel, and the majority or all the merchants who are aboard his vessel should be informed of the agreement he was forced to make or will make with the officers of the above armed units. With the advice and approval of these merchants he shall pay the amount agreed as ransom. The merchants are required to repay him the sum paid out in proportion to the value of the cargo they have aboard the vessel.

The ransom shall be paid by an assessment levied on all the cargo aboard the vessel in proportion to the amount and the value of the cargo, and the patron of the vessel shall share in this payment to the extent of half the value of his vessel.

If there are no merchants aboard the vessel, the patron shall consult with the officers of the stern, the navigator, and officers of the prow. He shall pay the ransom with the approval of all those mentioned above. The merchants whose cargo is aboard the vessel shall not and cannot protest such payment of ransom, provided that the patron share in the payment of ransom in the amount equal to half the value of his vessel.

To continue: If the patron should come upon armed naval units in the places mentioned above, but these were units of a friendly power, [129] and he would wish to present a gift to the commander of such units or entertain him aboard his vessel, and the merchants are aboard his vessel, he is required to get their approval to proceed in this manner, or to act in accordance with the expressed desire of the crew as stated before. If he proceeds in the manner outlined above, he shall be reimbursed for his expenditures.

Further, if, however, the patron did not conduct himself in accordance with the wishes of the merchants aboard his vessel, or in their absence with the wishes of the persons mentioned before, but acted in this matter arbitrarily and gave such gifts without the knowledge of the merchants or without the consultation of the individuals mentioned previously, he shall pay out these expenditures from his personal cash box, and the merchants will not be required to reimburse him for the expenditure of money used to buy such gifts that he presented to the officers of these armed vessels.

231-Payment of Ransom to or Concluding of Agreements With Armed Enemy Vessels

If at the moment the vessel is fully or partly cargoed, it is located in an enemy territory or other dangerous locality, and is threatened by the arrival in the vicinity of unfriendly armed vessels, and if the patron of the vessel in order to avoid damage to the cargo aboard the vessel attempted to approach the enemy craft with some proposition that would guarantee safety to his vessel and the cargo, and the majority or all of the merchants are aboard the vessel, he shall be obliged to inform them of the terms he offered or intends to offer to the enemy officers of these vessels. With the approval and consent of the merchants he shall pay the amount of ransom agreed upon, and the merchants shall share in the amount paid in proportion to the value of their cargo aboard the vessel.

If it should happen that there would not be a single merchant aboard the vessel, but the vessel is anchored in waters adjacent to where the merchants are domiciled and can be reached by the patron in order to apprise them of the situation and of the agreement he had concluded or will conclude with the armed vessels in order to save his life and all the cargo aboard, he is required to inform them of this turn of events; if there was not sufficient time to notify the merchants of this happening, he shall proceed in such manner after obtaining the support of all the members of the crew; if he had acted according to these instructions, the merchants shall be required to share in the damages, as if they had been present, and shall not and could not raise any objections to the action he had taken in this matter.

Further, if the patron of the vessel had concluded an agreement [130] although the majority or all of them were aboard the vessel or within an easy reach, such an agreement, concluded or that will be concluded without the consultation and approval of the merchants who were aboard the vessel or nearby where they could have been notified of this matter, is not binding upon the merchants whether all or only part of their cargo was aboard the vessel, because the patron failed to consult them in this matter. If, however, the merchants were in a locality where communication with them was an impossibility, and the patron concluded an agreement after consultation of the other persons mentioned previously, the merchants shall be required to reimburse him for the expenditures described above.

If by chance he should have concluded such an agreement without the knowledge of the merchants and without a consultation with the parties mentioned before, solely upon his own responsibility, he shall pay for all the expenses from his own personal cash box, and no one else will be required to share in these expenditures, because the patron had acted without the knowledge of the parties mentioned.

Further, if the vessel is anchored in one of the locations enumerated above after unloading its cargo, and if the merchants had agreed with the patron that he shall wait for them and that they will provide him with a new shipment of cargo, and in the interim armed vessels approach his vessel, and the patron in order to avoid any damage concludes some agreement with the command of such vessels, or if some unfortunate accident occurs that will result in the loss of his vessel, the merchants shall not be required to share in the damage or in the expenditures he incurred while waiting for them, because they had unloaded their cargo. They may, however, if they wish, reimburse him for these losses of their own free will.

If it should happen that the merchants did not cargo and dispatch the vessel in the agreed period of time, and in the meantime armed vessels arrive in the vicinity and the patron shall be forced either to reach a protective covenant with them or to lose his vessel, the merchants shall be required to pay the amount of the ransom agreed upon between the patron and the armed vessels or to reimburse him for any expense that he had incurred due to their negligence, because they had failed to dispatch the vessel on the date agreed to mutually.

232-Stolen Cargo

If a patron of a vessel took aboard at some designated location cargo of several merchants, or if such cargo belonged exclusively to one merchant, with the purpose of delivering it to another location, as had been agreed with the merchants or one merchant, and it should happen that the vessel while sailing should encounter armed or unarmed [131] enemy vessels, and the evil people sailing such ships forcibly steal one-third, one-half, or three-fourths of his cargo, more or less, and the patron after arriving at the port of destination of his cargo refused to unload the remaining cargo and release it to the merchants or merchant to whom it belonged because they had not as yet paid the lading fees for the cargo that had been stolen by the enemies, such behavior is not and cannot be justified.

Why? Because the merchant is required to pay lading fees only on the cargo that a patron in the circumstances mentioned above delivered for him.

However, the incident discussed above should be interpreted in the following manner: If the merchants who cargoed the vessel, as had been stated above, should be in a state of war with the parties who had stolen their cargo, the vessel that carried their cargo, if it is saved, shall be required to share in the damages that had occurred proportionally with the cargo lost and salvaged. The patron on the other hand shall be paid the lading charges due him, and the merchants or merchant are not obligated in any other way.

Further, if there had been an agreement reached as to the mutual responsibility for all the damages, the cargo salvaged would not be assessed for the cargo that had been stolen, and the merchants to whom such cargo belonged shall not be required to pay the patron any lading fees for the cargo that had been lost, nor shall the patron be required to pay any damages, unless the merchants can show and prove that the cargo that had been stolen was lost due to his negligence or with his knowledge and approval. If the merchants can prove and substantiate this charge, the patron shall pay all their damages and satisfy them to the full extent of their demands without any opposition.

If the merchants cannot prove such a charge, the patron shall be relieved of all responsibility. On the other hand, the merchant or merchants to whom the salvaged cargo belongs shall pay the patron all lading fees due on the salvaged cargo but nothing more.

Further, if these merchants were in a state of war with these evil people who had stolen their cargo, but the patron of the vessel was not in a state of war with them, his vessel shall not be required to share proportionally with the salvaged cargo in payment of damages for the cargo stolen, unless, in conformity with what has been stated above, there had been an agreement concluded that in case of a disaster the cargo and the vessel shall mutually share the damages. As has been stated, in such a situation the merchants are required to pay the lading fees only for the cargo salvaged. ⁽³⁾

[132] Further, if on the other hand, the patron of the vessel was at war with these evil people but the merchants were not, the vessel shall be required to share proportionally in all damages that will occur. The shipping charges shall also be taken into account in sharing of the damages, just as the vessel and the cargo lost as well as that which was salvaged, if as it had been stated above, there was a proper agreement reached in these matters. If no such agreement was concluded, the cargo of one merchant shall not be assessed to pay the damages for the cargo of another merchant. The merchant who lost his cargo shall bear such a loss personally, but the patron of the vessel can demand payment of lading fees only for the cargo salvaged.

The patron who had hired sailors for such a voyage and agreed to pay them a specified amount for the completion of the voyage shall be required to pay them proportionally to the amount he had received in lading fees. If the crew is paid monthly wages, the patron shall pay their wages proportionally to the amount he received in lading fees.

Why? Because no one can prevent an attack by people of ill will. Nevertheless, if the sailors had made an agreement with the patron of the vessel to be paid monthly, that he shall pay them their wages each month on the day they enlisted, he shall be forced to pay them for as many months as they had served aboard his vessel, if their enlistment ended before the robbery had been committed, whether he had received his lading fees or not. What is the reason for this? Because such were the terms of their agreement.

If it should happen that the civil authorities or evil people should imprison the patron in some locality, but the location of his imprisonment does not prevent him from an opportunity of discharging his crew, he should discharge the sailors, regardless of whether such sailors were hired to work for monthly wages or a flat sum for completion of the journey. Under such circumstances he shall not be required to pay them any wages for the whole period of his imprisonment, as it is not his fault that he is not able to earn any money, for the impediment is not of his own choosing. In addition, the patron of the vessel is losing enough already, for he is deprived of making a living, and his vessel is wasting away.

However, if the patron of a vessel should be imprisoned by the civil authorities or some evil people in a place where he has ample opportunity to discharge his crew, but fails to do this, and retains their services, he shall pay them for the time they remain under his command.

Why? Because had he wanted to discharge them, he had ample opportunity to do so. As he did not want to do this, but retained them in his service, it is proper that he pay their wages for the whole time they remained in his service, unless there had been some reservations [133] made relative to this matter at the time they enlisted aboard his vessel.

This article was written for the reasons stated above.

233-Screw-Jacks, Winches and Other Equipment Rented or Taken Surreptitiously

A patron of a vessel who rents or takes any winches, screw-jacks, or other equipment surreptitiously in order to launch his vessel or to pull it ashore shall not be required to pay any damages for the use of such equipment if he rented it at a higher rental fee agreed on with the person who rented him such equipment.

Further, if he had taken such equipment without the knowledge of its owner, he shall be required to pay for all the damage to such equipment, if he had used it, without any objections or opposition.

Regardless of whether or not such rented equipment shall be damaged, the amount of rental agreed to between the parties must be paid in toto without any delay or opposition.

234-A Promise Made to the Merchants by the Patron to Wait for Them for a Specified Period of Time Must Be Kept

A patron who in promising the merchants to carry their cargo stated that he will wait for them for a certain period of time before departing is required to delay sailing until that date, as he had agreed with them.

Should he sail before the date agreed upon with the merchants, and the merchants had suffered some damage due to this, he shall reimburse them for all the damages suffered due to his negligence.

If, however, on the other hand, the merchants failed to deliver their cargo by the date agreed and thus delayed the sailing of the vessel, and the patron had suffered some damage, the merchants shall reimburse him for all the expenses and damage due to their negligence.

If the patron due to fear of threat from local civil authorities, or approach of armed enemy vessels, or due to an impending storm, and only for these reasons, should set sail before the date agreed with the merchants, he shall not be held responsible for any damages the merchants had suffered due to his hasty departure, because this did not happen of his own will. For the same reasons the merchants shall not be held accountable to the patron for any damages he might have suffered.

235-Setting Sail on Date Specified in an Agreement

If the merchants who have engaged a vessel to ship cargo and [134] agreed to dispatch the vessel by a certain date shall fail to do so by the day specified, the patron can, if he so desires, regardless of whether the agreement was made in writing or in the presence of witnesses and entered into the register of the vessel, or entered into by a hand clasp of the merchants and the patron, the latter may demand the payment of the amount provided in the penalty clause, if such a penalty clause had been one of the provisions of the agreement.

If there had been no agreement made between the patron of a vessel and the merchants relative to a penalty clause, the patron can demand that the merchants reimburse him for all the expenses incurred by him due to their negligence, with this reservation, that the delay was not occasioned by them, and was not an act of God or the turbulence of the sea. Under such circumstances the merchants shall not be required to pay the patron the penalty agreed to between them nor any expense he had incurred due to the circumstances mentioned above.

If, on the other hand, during the period of time agreed to by the merchants and the patron there should arise obstacles imposed by the civil authorities, the nature of which would make the merchants fearful of cargoing the vessel there and sailing elsewhere, or to export anything out of the country, they shall not be required to pay the patron of the vessel any damages since these were not caused by them. If, however, these obstacles had taken place after the period of time set by the patron and the merchants, and the latter had not dispatched the vessel due to their negligence, they shall pay the patron the penalty that had been decided and agreed to.

If, on the other hand, there had been no agreement made concerning a penalty clause, the merchant shall nevertheless be required to reimburse the patron for all the expenses that he incurred or will incur. All these damages and expenses shall be ascertained and estimated by two Elders [of the Sea Guild] well versed and experienced in the art of sailing.

The two Elders shall estimate and ascertain the damages and expenses that the patron of the vessel suffered due to the negligence of the merchants in a manner that will not be disadvantageous to one or the other side and that will make possible for both parties to remain friendly and on the best of terms, if the patron had been paid part of the lading charges, he shall pay the sailors their wages in the proportion to the amount of the shipping charges paid him.

Further, regardless of what arrangements are made by the patron of the vessel with the merchants, the sailors shall be bound by the terms of the agreement.

In the same manner, as has been stated previously, the patron shall be held accountable to the merchants, to whom he had promised [135] to sail forth on a specific date but had failed to do so due to his own negligence.

If the members of the crew were hired for a specified amount of money to undertake the voyage, the patron shall not be obliged to pay them as he had not agreed with them as to the specific date of sailing. If, however, the sailors were hired on monthly wages, he shall pay them the full amount due them, as had been agreed at the moment they entered his service.

Our ancestors, who first began to sail throughout the world, had perceived and determined that matters related to damages, which could be suffered by the merchants as well as the masters of vessels, should be submitted to the Elders of the Sea Guild for evaluation and arbitration, because no one knows and can know whether some misfortune may bring him benefit or cause him some injury thus, it is best that such matters be entrusted to the prudence of the Elders for arbitration.

For this reason the article above has been written. If, therefore, there were no merchants, there would be no one for whom to build vessels. If there were no vessels, there would not be so many fine merchants as there actually are. Therefore the merchants must endure all sorts of abuses and indignities from the masters of the vessels, while the latter must endure even more from the merchants for many reasons not worth mentioning here or of repeating, for all of us are well aware and well versed in the issues under discussion here, and since all can see and know of all these matters, we shall not repeat them here. If there should be anyone who is ignorant of these matters because of his disinterest, let him turn to those who in his opinion should be much better informed than he is.

236-Vessel Cargoed With a Load of Clay Vases or Jars

If the vessel is to be cargoed with clay vases, the merchants shall provide experienced stevedores who will know how to load these vases and store them safely aboard the vessel, provided the merchants are in a locality where such stevedores can be hired for money. If they are in a locality where it is impossible to hire such skilled men for money, the merchants shall make arrangements with the sailors, who shall be required to load such cargo aboard. The merchants shall pay the sailors for this work according to the amount determined by the navigator, and the navigator shall proceed in a manner so that the sailors shall be well paid for their work and the merchants will not feel cheated. This should be left to the discretion of the navigator, as he acts in this matter as a scale of justice, which will weigh all and determine what is just and equitable for the merchants, the patron [136] of the vessel, the crew, as well as every other person aboard the vessel or sailing on the vessel. He should not lean in his decision either toward one or the other side. If he should act arbitrarily in either direction, he shall be adjudged perfidious, and if this is proved against him, his oath given under any circumstances shall never again be accepted or given any credence.

Further, if the patron had promised and assured the merchants that he shall cargo the vessel, the merchants shall not be required to hire porters to do this, but the patron should reach an understanding with the crew that will perform this task. If the crew had agreed to do this work, he shall pay them in the manner described above. If the sailors agree to do this work for the patron of the vessel, he shall pay them in the amount determined by the navigator, in order that they be satisfied. ⁽⁴⁾

237-Breakage of Crockery Aboard the Vessel

If a patron leased his vessel to the merchants, who cargoed it with a load of vases employing their own porters, and if one or more of these vases are broken, chipped, or cracked, the patron will not be liable for any such damage, regardless of whether the porters did their work well or poorly, because this did not result due to any negligence due to the patron.

The merchants to whom these vases belong shall pay the patron the full lading charges that they had agreed to pay for every vase loaded aboard. The latter should be, however, understood in the following manner: that the patron shall be required to show and return to the merchants all of the remnants or parts of these broken vases without any sort of opposition.

Further, if, on the other hand, the patron of the vessel is in charge of loading such vases aboard, and the porters chosen by him to do this work perform the task well and without any errors, and in spite of their care one or more of these vases shall be broken, the patron shall not be required to pay the merchants to whom these vases belong any damages; he should not, however, be paid lading charges on the vases that had been broken.

Why should the patron not pay for this damage suffered by the merchants? For the simple reason that no one should believe or judge that any patron would be happy if some merchant would suffer some damage while aboard his vessel due to his negligence or due to some [137] circumstances that he could have prevented from happening. However, if the merchants could prove that the vases were broken due to the negligence of the patron or of the porters selected by him, the patron will be required to pay the damages to the merchants to whom the vases belong.

For these reasons the patron should not attempt to load the vessel with vases or order others to load them if the merchant or his representative would not be present while the vessel is being cargoed with the vases, in order to avoid responsibility for the damage.

Further, if at the time the vessel was being loaded, the merchants or their representative were present, and one or more of these vases were broken, the patron of the vessel would not be responsible for such damage, and the merchants should not and could not under any pretense refuse to pay the patron the lading charges due, because they themselves or their representative were present at the time the vessel was cargoed.

Further, if any vase has been broken during the loading or storing of such cargo, the merchants shall not be required to pay the shipping charges on the broken vases; but if such vases are broken at the time they are being unloaded, the lading charges shall be paid on such broken vases.

This article was written for the reasons given above.

238-A Vessel Commandeered by the Crew

A patron who leased a vessel with the stipulation that he would sail it to a predetermined destination should unload it as soon as he reached the port of destination. After unloading the cargo he had aboard, he should attempt to find other cargo for his vessel in order that he be able to increase his own earnings as well as the profit for the shareholders of the vessel. The crew should wait until he is able to get another shipment and not urge him to hurry, provided he pay them from the moment they had undertaken the journey.

If the sailors, ill-disposed toward the master of their vessel, took the vessel and sailed away from the place where the cargo had been unloaded without the permission and knowledge of the patron who was at the time on shore, they shall lose by such an act all rights to their persons, their property, and everything else they may possess. The patron of the vessel may have them bound in chains, surrender them to the civil authority, and bring legal action against them in the same manner as against those who would mutiny and deprive him of his authority. The above conditions prevail only when the vessel is anchored or hovering in friendly ports or waters and free from any imminent danger.

[138] In addition, the sailors who would dare to commit such an act or agree to its commission shall be required to make payment of all damages, losses, and diminution of profit that the master experiences due to their behavior. Credence shall be given to the patron in these matters on the basis of an ordinary deposition made by him.

Sailors who have committed such an act, or have agreed to it, shall be jailed until such time as they are able to reach a satisfactory agreement with the patron or pay him the damages as he will see fit.

This article was written in order to prevent sailors from commandeering a vessel, even if the patron of the vessel had wronged them. Instead, they should repair to the local court and there charge him with his evil acts, which in their opinion he committed against them. It would not be proper if the sailors, at any given moment when they believed that the patron of a vessel had harmed them in some way or if he detained them in some locality contrary to their wishes, would be able to commandeer his vessel, aboard which they served.

For these reasons the penalties stated above were mentioned.

239-Purchase of Essential Provisions and Equipment for the Vessel

A patron who has leased his vessel profitably for a journey to a specific port of destination shall be required to purchase under the direction of the clerk all essential provisions and equipment for his vessel. In addition, if there is need for some equipment aboard the vessel, the patron should purchase it with the understanding and knowledge of the clerk. After making all the purchases of food and other necessities, he shall also purchase essential tools; if, however, the patron of the vessel is anchored at the locality where the shareholders in the vessel are present, he must ask their approval before he makes these purchases.

If the shareholders refuse to permit the purchase of these essentials, and the patron is convinced that the items lacking are essential to the welfare of the vessel, he shall not be deterred by the refusal of the shareholders but shall buy these essentials; and this is due to the fact that the shareholders will probably remain safe on shore and are indifferent to the dangers that others will face on the high seas, just as long as they are making profit. For these reasons the shareholders should not oppose the purchase of essential equipment, because the patron had determined that such equipment was vital to the safety of the vessel, and if it was lacking, the vessel would be threatened by great danger, and the patron himself would later be subject to accusations made by the merchants. For these reasons, therefore, the shareholders shall not be opposed to the acquisition of such equipment.

If the patron had any funds that belong to him and the shareholders [139] mutually, he should pay the crew and procure the necessary equipment if he did not have any mutual funds on hand, he should together with the clerk make an account of all the wages due to the crew as well as all the purchases that were made by the clerk, as well as all the equipment that the patron will purchase, and arrive at the total amount of the expenditures. When the patron and the clerk have made an estimate of the amount of all the expenses, the clerk must personally approach each of the shareholders and inform him that he shall pay a specified amount, dependent upon the amount of his investment in the vessel. If the shareholders wanted to examine the account book, the clerk must show it to them. After the shareholders are informed and made acquainted with the account book as prepared by the clerk, each of them is required to pay the clerk the full amount, that is his share, proportionally to the amount of the investment in the vessel.

If there should be found among the shareholders one who refuses to pay his just share that is due from him based on the amount of his investment in the vessel, the patron may take out a loan, because the shareholder refused to pay his share, and his share in the vessel shall be used as a collateral for the loan as well as the payment of the interest on the loan, which the patron promised to pay the loan maker even if the whole amount invested in the vessel by the shareholder had to be used for this purpose, because it was due to his refusal to pay his just share of expenses that the loan had to be made, if it should happen that the vessel was lost before the loan was paid off, the former shareholder shall be held responsible for this indebtedness and shall pay it out of his other holdings, because the loan was negotiated with his full knowledge and due to his obstinacy.

Further, if the patron found himself in a locality where none of the shareholders were present, and if he did not have personal funds or mutual funds with him and was forced to arrange for a loan under such circumstances, all the investors in the vessel shall be responsible for the repayment of such a loan, and none of the shareholders shall oppose this.

If the vessel was lost before the loan was paid off, none of the shareholders shall be obliged to pay the loan maker anything, because the vessel was wrecked and lost. Let the loan makers beware when they make any loans, for the shareholders lose enough when the vessel is lost as they lose all their investment in such a vessel. For the reasons given above, the loan maker cannot demand anything from the shareholders in a vessel; he should be careful, therefore, when he loans out his money and remember that if a vessel is wrecked, its shareholders will not be obliged to pay for anything due from such a [140] vessel. ⁽⁵⁾

Further, if a vessel is located in a place where the loan maker shall demand repayment of the loan, and if the patron has in his possession his personal money or the money belonging mutually to all the shareholders in the vessel, he is required to pay off the loan at once and return the vessel to its shareholders, and with them to go over the account in order to determine the amount of profit made or the losses incurred. If he has made profit, he shall pay each of the shareholders his due, dependent upon the extent of his investment in the vessel, and in this manner divide among all the shareholders all of the profit. If no profit had been made, but rather a loss incurred, every shareholder is bound to reimburse the patron the amount due from him, dependent upon the amount of his investment in the vessel. It is only proper that he who wants to share in the profits should also share in the losses incurred.

If the patron does not have any personal money or money belonging to other persons, or earned by the vessel, or any mutual funds, and the loan maker forces the sale of the vessel in order to recover his loan, the patron is required, if there was any money left from the sale of the vessel, to proceed to the location where the shareholders are present and give each of them the amount due to him from the amount left over from the sale of the vessel.

If the master of the vessel was forced to sell it for the reasons listed above, the shareholders in the vessel cannot hold him accountable, unless they can prove that the loan he took out on account of which the vessel was sold, having been unable to repay it, had been taken to pay for his gambling or debauchery. Should the shareholders be able to prove such a charge against him, the patron shall be forced to return and to pay the shareholders their full investment in the vessel of the actual amount of money they had originally invested. Should the patron be without means to pay this obligation, he shall be seized, bound in irons, and imprisoned until he is able to satisfy the shareholders or pay the damages they had undergone.

If the patron of the vessel that had been sold under the circumstances mentioned before should fail to return with the amount left after the indebtedness had been paid off in order to go over the accounts with the shareholders and pay them their just shares, but instead proceeds somewhere else, and due to this loses the amount that he had with him to repay the shareholders, he shall be forced to pay the shareholders in the manner prescribed above or take the consequences as discussed above, if, however, he should proceed to some [141] other locality with the money that had remained from the sale of the vessel and makes profit with it, he shall be required to share this profit with the shareholders in proportion to the amount each had invested in the vessel, and all this shall be done without any deceit or opposition.

240-Obligation of a Master of a Vessel to Render Account of Transactions to the Shareholders After Completion of Each Voyage

Every patron of a vessel should give an account of the transactions after completion of a voyage. If he should fail to render such an account after each voyage, and the vessel was lost or suffered damage, he shall be required to return and to pay the shareholders all of the profit made. The loss of a vessel cannot and should not free the patron from the obligation to return to the shareholders and pay them the profit that he had been able to make with the vessel.

If the patron could not do this because he was without means, and it is possible to apprehend him, he may be seized, detained, placed in fetters, and treated as had been mentioned in the previous article.

This article was written because there are many patrons who undertake new voyages before they have rendered an account of the previous voyage to the shareholders, and if it should happen that they lose the vessel, they claim they had lost also everything that they possessed. Whether the vessel was lost or not, patrons of vessels are in every instant required to render an accounting to the shareholders, as had been stated above.

In addition, the patron of every vessel must and should give an account to the shareholders of every journey that he undertook, both in regard to the profit as well as the loss, in order to avoid that the penalties mentioned above would not be invoked against him.

In addition, every patron is required, if he had made any profit on the money entrusted to him by the shareholders, to pay them their share of such profit. If it should happen that he lost the profit made on the use of their money, none of the shareholders shall suffer any loss, because the patron had retained these mutual funds contrary to the wishes of these shareholders.

241-Patron's Obligation to Submit an Accounting of His Activities, and, Death of a Patron Before an Account Is Rendered

If a master of a vessel completed one or more voyages and if while engaged in these voyages he returned once or several times to the locality where the majority or all of the shareholders reside, he should give them an account of each journey upon his return, if he should fail to do this, he shall be held accountable in the manner stated in [142] the last article.

Further, if the patron kept on sailing, as had been mentioned above, without making an accounting of these trips to the shareholders and without paying them their share of the profit, they should demand that he render an account to them. If he should fail to do this, but without any malice or evil intention, they may take proper steps to force him to make such a report to them.

On the other hand, regardless of whether the shareholders summoned the patron or not, but did not resort to force in order to have him give such a report after he refused to do it, and in the meantime the master of the vessel had died, and only after his death the shareholders make demands for such an accounting from his beneficiaries or others who have received his wealth, demanding that they pay the shareholders their due share of profit, neither the beneficiaries nor others who may have gained control and possession of the patron's wealth can be required to give such an accounting or to pay them any part of the profit made by the deceased, if the shareholders cannot prove that there had been profit made, or if the deceased had not made such a stipulation in his will. ⁽⁶⁾

If it should happen that the deceased patron had not left a will or a testament, the beneficiaries or those who have gained control of his wealth, are obligated to the shareholders only to the extent or the amount written in the will of the deceased or in the register of the vessel that the patron had kept. If there is an entry in the ship's register indicating that profit was made by the patron, his beneficiaries or those who have gained control of his wealth shall pay the shareholders, each one of them, his proper share of the amount entered in the register, even if it became necessary to sell all the remaining possessions of the deceased.

If it should happen that there is no entry in the register indicating that any profit had been made, but on the other hand there are entries of losses and expenses that the owners of the vessel ought to repay to the beneficiaries or to the persons who have the estate of the deceased patron in their control, or that the patron borrowed from others for the necessities of the vessel, the shareholders will be required to pay these obligations proportionally to the amount due from each. This resolution shall be interpreted in the following manner: that these monetary obligations were not incurred by the party who had been in command of the vessel while alive because of some negligence on his part that called for the expenditures of these sums.

[143] If the shareholders could prove that these expenditures were made because of some negligence of the person who commanded the vessel while he was alive, they shall not be obligated to pay them, because it had been established by them that the money was paid out due to the negligence of the deceased. Otherwise, the shareholders shall pay these obligations proportionally to their investment in the vessel; it is only just and proper that they share in the losses as they would have willingly shared in the profit if there had been any profit. There is still another reason why such action is justifiable. When the deceased was alive, was patron of their vessel, and was in contact with them while traveling and sailing for them, they had not called him to square all the accounts with them and to pay them their share in the profit made.

If it should happen that the deceased had not left any last will or any other document and did not maintain a ship's register, the shareholders can make no demands upon the beneficiaries, and the beneficiaries or those who have the property of the deceased in their control cannot demand any reimbursement from the shareholders for the expenses made relating to the vessel, regardless of the number of witnesses regarding this matter, because no entries were made in the ship's register concerning such expenditures. Let, therefore, everyone be very careful in conducting his affairs, in order that he may not suffer any damage or be wronged.

This article was written for the reasons listed above, with, however, exception of any kind of agreements or promises made by the patron to the shareholders or by the shareholders to the patron.

There is still another situation that would constitute an exception to this rule: when a patron after squaring the accounts with the majority or all of the shareholders owed them part of the money that was due them as profit. If it should happen that the shareholders set a certain date by which he was to pay them this money, and before the date of expiration and before he was able to pay them the remaining amount he should die, the shareholders shall be paid from the estate of the deceased, even if it became necessary to sell all of his possessions.

242-Explanation of the Preceding Article

In conformity with what had been explained and ascertained in the preceding article, the patron of every vessel is required to give accounting to the shareholders upon completion of each journey. Should he fail to do this, he shall bear the full responsibility in the manner emphasized in that article. This obligation should be understood in the following manner: that the patron after completion of a journey or [144] several journeys will reach the locality where the majority or all of the shareholders reside. If he should arrive at a port located in a territory where none of the shareholders reside and sail out of this port to journey and sail to various parts of the world, and at none of the ports where he anchored his vessel should he be able to find any of the shareholders, and a misfortune should overtake him, and he should lose part or all of the profits he had made with the vessel but not by any fault of his, he should not be required to repay the shareholders for the loss they suffered because the loss had not occurred because of his negligence.

Further, if at the time of sailing, the shareholders had agreed with the patron that he will be required while journeying and stopping at some port to send them their share of the profit he made on each journey, he shall be required to fulfill their wishes.

Further, if he failed to do that and kept their portion of the profit and subsequently lost it, regardless of how this misfortune happened, he will be obligated to repay the shareholders the full amount due to them. Should he be unable to do this, he shall be held accountable in the manner described in the previous article.

Further, if the shareholders had not made any such reservations when he was setting sail, he shall not be required to forward any money to them. Should he, however, send this money or it is lost, he shall be held accountable for it, because he sent it without being ordered to do so.

Further, the patron shall fulfill all the agreements and promises he had concluded with the shareholders at the time he was to sail. If it should happen that he failed to keep them arbitrarily he shall be held responsible for all the damages suffered and that will be borne by the shareholders.

If, however, he failed to keep the promises he made to the shareholders at the time of sailing, but this was not the result of his neglect but rather the expression of the will of God, the sea, civil authorities, or evil people, he shall not be answerable to the shareholders for failing to live up to his promises and agreements, because no one can circumvent or prevent the obstacles that God, the sea, or evil people place in one's path.

Further, everything that has been stated above shall be accomplished without any deceit or fraud. If such conduct shall be proved against a party, the latter shall pay all the damages to the party aggrieved, and this must be done without any hesitation and delay.

This article was written for the reasons listed above.

[145] 243-When a Patron Attempts to Increase the Size of His Vessel

A patron who would want to enlarge his vessel and this happens within the environments where the majority or all of the shareholders are resident, he must ask their permission to undertake this task. If the majority or all of them agree to his proposal for enlarging the vessel, he may proceed, and all the shareholders shall raise the necessary funds, each in proportion to the amount originally invested in the vessel. If one of the shareholders objected to this, it will be of no avail, because the enlargement of the vessel is to take place with the knowledge and approval of the majority, and should the patron of the vessel be required to take out a loan for this purpose, the objecting shareholder shall be held accountable for its repayment in the maimer discussed in the previous article. ⁽⁷⁾

If the shareholders will not wish to agree to the enlargement of the vessel, the patron cannot force them to support this project. He can, however, force them to do what we had discussed in the previous article. In addition, if the patron had the vessel enlarged without the approval and permission of the shareholders, they shall not be obligated to the patron in any manner whatsoever, except in the degree discussed in the previous article.

Further, if the patron happened to be in an area where none of the shareholders are present and wanted to enlarge his vessel, he may do so provided he proceeds in the manner as explained in the previous article, ⁽⁸⁾ and the shareholders may attempt to prevent him from undertaking this in the manner stated in that article. The patron will be obligated toward the shareholders according to the terms of the agreements and promises that had been mentioned in the article relating to the repair of vessels, for the simple reason that the enlargement of a vessel falls into the category of marine repairs.
 

244-Further Explanation of the Preceding Article

In the last article we had stated and explained that if a patron wished to enlarge the vessel and was in the locality where the majority or all of the shareholders are resident, he must ask their approval to proceed on his own volition. He can force them to do what had been said in that article, that is, to sell the vessel at an auction; the shareholders [146] also have the right to force the master of their vessel to sell it at auction. This is the correct procedure and has been the customary procedure that has been followed, but the auctioning off of the vessel shall actually take place.

It was stated and explained further that if the patron was located in the area where neither the majority nor all of the shareholders were domiciled, and wanted to enlarge the vessel, he may do so, and none of the shareholders can raise any opposition in this matter, with the exceptions made in the preceding article; this is all true. However, this proposal shall be understood as follows that the patron may order the enlargement of the vessel under two conditions, namely, in order to be able to earn more profit by being able to carry more cargo, or in order to undertake a longer voyage, if he has the opportunity to make such a long voyage or has been given a chance to earn greater profits, when he knows and can perceive the opportunity to make more money for himself and the shareholders in the vessel by taking on passengers aboard the vessel or when there is a dire need for larger vessels sought by merchants for shipping their cargo.

If the patron undertook the enlargement of the vessel for one of the two reasons mentioned, the shareholders shall be required to share in all the expenses and costs that the patron undertook in relation with the enlargement of the vessel, unless these shareholders can prove that he undertook this task motivated by other reasons.

If the shareholders cannot prove these charges against the patron, they shall be required to accept his account of all the financial transactions related to this matter whether he earned any profit or suffered losses in this venture. Should the patron make any profit, the shareholders shall accept their share of the profit proportionally to the amount of their investment in the vessel. If on the other hand he incurred losses, each of them is bound to reimburse him in the amount proportional to their investment in the vessel.

It is equitable, therefore, that in the same manner that each of them would have shared in the profits, if the patron had earned profit, equally in the same manner each shall have to share in the deficits, if deficits had occurred, because the master of the vessel proceeded to enlarge the vessel in good faith and for the reasons given above, and because it cannot be proved that he was motivated by some other considerations.

Further, if the shareholders would be able to prove that their patron was motivated not by the reasons listed above when he undertook the enlargement of the vessel, but was motivated by vanity in order that people would look up to him as a commander of a large vessel, or had proceeded with this plan for some other improper reasons the shareholders shall not be required to share the cost of such an undertaking, [147] if they do not choose to do so. In such a case the following steps shall be taken all the expenditures of such a venture shall be submitted to two well-informed persons, who will examine, evaluate, and determine the validity of such expenditures, and whatever these two persons shall decide will be binding upon the shareholders and the patron, and neither side in this dispute shall enter any objections concerning the evaluation and determination made by these two well informed persons.

In addition, in the event that the shareholders do not force the sale of the vessel, and the master of the vessel retains his command under the same conditions he had formerly, having the same shareholders in the vessel, the latter shall be liable for all the expenditures mentioned above but only from the profits they had received, which had been earned by the master of their vessel, in spite of the fact that the learned persons mentioned above had evaluated and determined the amount of such expenditures. The shareholders had already given the patron the benefit of the doubt by retaining him in command of the vessel, and in not refusing to accept and acknowledge the expenditures he incurred without proper and customary procedures. Such procedures should be followed in all kinds of disputes because it is necessary that such matters be settled justly and in conformity with decision given by learned arbitrators.

Further, if the shareholders had auctioned off the vessel in order to get rid of the patron and in this manner he no longer commands the vessel, they shall be obliged to reimburse him for all his expenses as had been evaluated, judged, and determined by the well-informed people, immediately after the vessel is auctioned off and the patron had been deprived of his position. If, however, the former patron of the vessel had taken out a loan to pay for the work of enlarging the vessel, as had been said before, without proper reasons, and had to pay or paid interest on the loan, the shareholders shall not be required to repay him the amount expended on the, payment of interest, unless they would voluntarily wish to do so.

If after the patron had completed the rebuilding or the remodeling of the vessel and then took out a loan to pay for the work and cost of remodeling or enlarging the vessel, and had to pay a rate of interest on such a loan, the shareholders shall be obligated to pay such interest, each of them in the amount proportionally to the amount of his investment in the vessel, and this shall be done without any opposition whatsoever.

Even though it had been stated and explained in the previous article that the enlargement of a vessel shall be classified as repairs, which is actually a matter of truth, it is nevertheless much easier to refrain from enlarging the vessel than from making necessary repairs [148] aboard it, if such repairs are needed. For this reason patrons of vessels should be most careful, if they wish to undertake some repairs or to enlarge a vessel when they are anchored in a foreign territory, to proceed with such work according to the well-founded customs in order to avoid being subjected to the above mentioned restrictions and losses, which may result in such cases. All special agreements and arrangements concluded between the shareholders and patrons of vessels relating to these matters are excluded from the above enumerated restrictions and penalties.

This article was written for the reasons mentioned within.

245-Repair of a Vessel

When a patron of a vessel in need of repair puts into a port where the majority or all of the shareholders are resident, he shall show them and explain to them the need of such repairs. If the latter agree, he should proceed and have the necessary repairs made, and the shareholders shall pay for such repairs, each in proportion to his investment in the vessel.

If any of the shareholders refused to pay their proper share due for the repair of the vessel, the patron should negotiate a loan, and the shareholders who had refused to pay his share of the cost of repair shall be held accountable for the repayment of such loan. ⁽⁹⁾

If, however, the shareholders would not agree to the repairs of the vessel because such repairs would cost more than the value of the vessel, and that if after having made such repairs they would wish to sell their vessel, they could not even regain the amount expended in repairing the vessel, the patron should not proceed with the repairs without the approval of the shareholders, if he is located with his vessel in the same area where they reside, nor can he force them to agree to such repairs. On the other hand, he can force the shareholders to auction off the vessel since they will not agree to having it repaired. Similarly, the shareholders can force the patron to bring about the sale of the vessel, for neither party has any primary claim on the vessel, all of them are and shall be considered as mutual owners of the vessel, unless some special agreement was concluded between them, providing for special privileges for one of them when such a situation arises. ⁽¹⁰⁾

If the patron had made repairs on the vessel without the approval [149] of the shareholders, none of them shall be held liable for the cost of such repairs in any degree since this was done without their authorization. However, the patron may deduct the cost of repairs from the profits he made with the use of the vessel, and none of the shareholders can enter any protest against his action. If the vessel should be wrecked before the patron had been able to deduct these expenditures from the profits, none of the shareholders will be required to pay him any damages. However, if some of the equipment was salvaged from the vessel, the patron shall have the right to take it, and no shareholder shall oppose this. If after paying for all the costs of repair there is some money left, the patron shall divide it among the shareholders proportionally to the amount of their investment in the vessel.

If any of the shareholders wished to sell his share in the vessel that had been repaired, he is bound to recognize the patron's priority claim to buy such shares, because of all the worry and care borne by the patron in repairing the vessel, if such a shareholder could not reach an agreement with the patron relative to the sale of his shares, the matter should be submitted to two Elders of the Sea Guild for arbitration, who shall evaluate the cost of the repairs in order to prevent any disputes between the patron and the shareholder, if such a shareholder should sell his shares in the vessel to another party. Everything that the above mentioned Elders decide and order shall be carried out, and neither the patron nor the shareholder who had initiated the dispute shall lodge any protests, and everything that the Elders had decided and announced shall be carried out according to the advice given by these persons who are well versed in the matters of marine trade.

Further, if the patron had arrived at a locality where none of the shareholders reside, and the vessel will be in such a need of repair that, without it, it would be impossible to continue to sail, he should proceed in the manner that would be beneficial to himself and the shareholders, since they are not available and since they had made him the guardian of their possessions. Therefore, he should be very careful not to harm himself or subject himself to suspicion by those who had given him their confidence. If the patron knows and is convinced in his mind and conscience that the repairs that are badly needed will be much more beneficial than damaging to the shareholders, he should proceed according to what in his judgment is indicated as necessary.

Whatever course of action he should take, whether to repair or to sell the vessel, it must be approved by the shareholders, because he had proceeded in good faith. The shareholders cannot doubt that the action he took was for the benefit of all, for everyone should consider [150] with whom he enters into a partnership, with the exception of a situation in which it had been determined between the patron and the shareholders that the patron shall not be authorized to repair or to sell the vessel without authorization from the majority or all of the shareholders.

If the shareholders had not made such an agreement, they shall have to accept whatever action the patron had taken in such matters, with the exception of a situation in which the patron had gambled and lost their vessel, lost it due to debauchery, or lost it because of some other negligence on his part. Under such circumstances the patron shall be required to pay them damages as outlined in the previous article.

This article was written in order that everyone be very cautious with whom he enters into a partnership or to whom he entrusts his property and in order that the terms of all agreements be carried out.

246 -Commandeering of Anchors

A master of a vessel who appropriated or ordered his crew to commandeer floats, buoys, or anchor buoys belonging to a vessel moored near by, will be required to pay the patron of the vessel to whom such anchors belonged the full value as estimated by the latter under oath, and in addition he must compensate him for all the damages that resulted from such rash action.

Further, the patron of a vessel whose anchors and other equipment were commandeered may initiate criminal action against the patron who had committed such an offense and charge him with theft.

Further, if any sailor should take an anchor belonging to the vessel on which he is a member of the crew without the knowledge and approval of the patron, that is to say, if he took such equipment without an order by his own desire, he shall be liable to the same penalty that would be imposed upon the patron of a vessel who ordered him to steal such equipment.

Further, if a sailor who had committed such a theft is unable to reimburse the master of the vessel from which such equipment was stolen for the loss of the equipment and the damages resulting thereof, such a sailor or sailors shall be seized, cast into prison, and kept there until they are able to reach an agreement with the patron and pay him all the damages and costs that had resulted from their action in the amount that will be given under oath by the master of the vessel from which such equipment was stolen, unless the patron of such a vessel would show them mercy, allowing them a period of time in which to repay him for the damage or allowing them to work out the amount due him for the damages he had suffered by their behavior. It [151] will be up to the disposition of the master who had suffered such damages which of the above mentioned methods he will accept for the repayment of the damage, whether he will decide to have them kept in jail or have them work out the amount due him by taking them into his employ.

This article was written because if there should be no set punishment for such violations, many injuries and misfortunes would result. In addition, because any vessel that shall be anchored may in order to prevent collision or in order to prevent its foundering in the mud or scraping its hull on the rocks, may anchor these buoys about, and anyone removing such safety equipment should be punished as had been stated above.

1. These matters were discussed in detail in Articles 60, 95, 99, and will be reiterated in Article 253.

2. Reference here is made to Article 138.

3. This is the initial mention of the principle of enemy goods on neutral vessel, as part of the law of the sea.

4. Earthenware actually included all sorts of pitchers, jars, crocks, vases, jugs, storing vats, although the term vases is most often used in the original manuscript.

5. Loan not covered by any collateral.

6. Probate courts did not exist. Wills, oral or written, were left with relatives or church authorities.

7. The statement does not refer to Article 242 but to Article 48.

8. Reference made here is not to the preceding Article but rather to Article 245 and also to Articles 50 and 51,

9. Reference here should be properly made to Article 48 and not to the previous Article.

10. Refer to Articles 55 and 56, and 49 for further explanation.