case mors against sluice see S C keb e r with note Michaelmas term car roll a  action on the case lie against the master of a ship to recover the value of  good which he have receive upon fraught on their be steal by open force and  violence from on board the ship while lie in the river Thames S C keb S C vent  S C ray S C lev S C keb Danv Molloy roll Abr side Mod Mod Mod ld raym S C cite  and say to be the first case adjudge as to the master of a ship Cowp a trial  at bar a action upon the case be bring against a master of a ship who have  take in good to transport they beyond sea for that be so negligent keep they  that they be steal away while the ship lie in the river of Thames Maynard  insist upon it that the master be not Chargeable say they he be Chargeable  while he be here but when he be go out of the realm he be not Chargeable  though the good be take from he this distinction he say have no foundation in  law hale chief justice it will lie upon you that be for the defendant to show  a difference betwixt a carrier and a master of a ship and it will lie upon you  that be for the plaintiff to show why the master of a ship shall be charge for  a robbery commit within a realm and not for a piracy commit at sea it be urge  by Mr holt for the plaintiff that a hoiman and ferrymail be bind to answer and  why not the master of a ship the defendant prove that there be no carelessness  nor negligent default in he Maynard he be not Chargeable if there be no  negligence in he because he be but a servant the owner take the fraught hale  chief justice he be exercitor ship if we shall let lose the master the  merchant will not be secure and if we shall be too quick upon he it may  discourage all master so that the consequence of this case be great but the  jury give a verdict for the defendant the court for the reason aforesaid  incline that way a it appear that a special verdict be find in this case the  material fact of which be that the ship lie within the body of a county that a  sufficient number of man be keep on board to attend her and that the master be  to have wage from the owner and the mariner from the master it be twice argue  and in Hilary term car hale chief justice deliver the unanimous opinion of the  court in favour of the plaintiff first because the ship be infra corpus  comitatfts the master can not avail himself of the rule of the civil law by  which master be not Chargeable pro financial loss satali second that he be  liable because he take a reward in receive the wage three because be receive  the good general fourthly because there be no difference between a master of a  ship and a common hoy man see the same case in marge but by the Geo c No owner  of any ship shall be liable to make good any loss or damage by reason of any  embezzlement by the master or mariner or any of they of any good on shipboard  beyond the value of the ship and fraught of the cargo  See Sutton v Mitchel  term Rep Froword v Pitard term Rep and the case of Barclay v Riggins there  cite page a