The consul at Yokohama had jurisdiction of proceedings to discharge the seaman upon his own application and with the master’s consent. His certificate of such a discharge, duly proved and authenticated, is therefore conclusive, and bars any claim by the libellant to subsequent wages. Coffin v. Weld, 2 Low. 81; Lamb v. Briard, 5 Abb. Adm. 367; Tingle v. Tucker, Id. 919.
The proceedings before the consul do not show that any question was made before him concerning the wages which might be due to the libellant up to the time of his discharge, or that any inquiry or consideration was given to that subject. The libellant is, therefore, not precluded by those proceedings from claiming anything to which, upon the merits, he may be entitled. Hutchinson v. Coombs, 1 Ware, 65; The Nimrod, Id. 9.
The affray on the morning of September 1st was the result of repeated quarrels between the cook and the steward during the two months previous! The steward is shown to have been of a quarrelsome disposition, and fie was discharged at Yokohama. According to the libellant’s account of the affray upon the trial, after high words between them in the galley the steward had rushed out, and presently came back to the door of the galley with one hand in his pocket, holding the handle of a knife, recognized by the cook as having a long blade, and with violent language challenged him to come out and fight; that the cook asked him what he had in his pocket, and told him to go away; that the steward then rushed towards him; and that the libellant thereupon, believing his life in danger, standing in the doorway of his own room leading from the galley, fired at him twice with a pistol. The steward testified before the cunsul that the cook had first challenged him to fight, and that he had afterwards *159come to the door of the galley and renewed the challenge; that the instrument in his hand was a can-opener and not a knife. When the mate and captain, upon hearing the pistol shots, immediately went to the galley, no resistance was made by the cook; but he said he was sorry he had not killed him. No complaint was made of the subsequent conduct of the cook, nor did he at any time show any evidences of an ugly disposition. Several times during his confinement ho requested to he allowed to go on duty. Similar requests in his behalf were made by others of the crew, none of which were acceded to by the captain. The pistol was not owned by Jackson, but had been given to him to be exchanged abroad for some foreign article. It was scarcely capable of inflicting a serious wound. The ball from it lodged in the steward’s wrist, but inflicted only a flesh wound, which, disabled his hand for two days only.
The captain was examined before the consul, and his deposition was also taken in this case. Prom these it does not appear that he ever instituted any inquiry into the particular causes of the affray, but he was familiar with the previous quarrelling between the cook and the steward, as he had shortly before, when appealed to by the cook for some protection against the steward, told him to get along as well as he could. Prom the violent character of the steward it is not certain that the cook did not have reasonable cause to believe himself in danger when the steward approached him from the galley door before he fired; but the fact that he had a pistol at hand, ready for use, and his language when arrested immediately after firing, show, not only that he was at the time in great passion, but also that his act was not merely an act of self-defence. The circumstances, while not sufficient to furnish a justification, do show much palliation in the degree of his offence. His long subsequent confinement by the master until the arrival at Yokohama was considered by the consul in his decision a sufficient punishment. In my judgment it was altogether more than was warranted at the hands of the master, having reference only to the character of the cook himself, and it may be that the confinement of the cook till arrival at Yokohama was quite as much an act of prudence and protection to him, in consequence of the quarrelsome and dangerous character of the steward, and the captain’s belief that it was necessary to keep them apart. Aside from this consideration, the evidence does not show sufficient in the general behavior of the cook to warrant the prevention of his subse*160quent return to duty, as lie desired. To inflict upon him, under these circumstances, loss of wages also, would be imposing a double punishment.
In the case of Brower v. The Maiden, Gilp. 296, Hopkinson, J., says:
“ When seamen are confined on board for any misconduct or disobedience, has it ever been pretended that their wages stop, or are therefore forfeited during confinement? I know of no such case. Their imprisonment is their punishment, and forfeiture of wages has not been added to it.” See, also, Bray v. The Ship Atlanta, Bee, 48; Wood v. The Nimrod, Gilp. 83, 89; Jay v. Almy, 1 Wood & M. 262; Thorn v. White, 1 Pet. Ad. 168, 175.
It is only where a mariner is incorrigibly disobedient, and his confinement, in consequence of his own dangerous character, is necessary to the safety of the ship, that a forfeiture of wages has also been imposed. It would be not only unjust to the seaman, but highly impolitic and dangerous as a precedent, to permit the vessel to make a profit by the confinement of seamen on board except in cases of this description. The proofs in this case fall far short of that, and the libellant should, therefore, recover his wages up to January 31, 1879, at the rate of $30 per month, less $60 advanced to him, with costs.