Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-02 00:00:00

been of the sane opinion had they been there. After con-
suiting the ?Lector who stated that the man was well enough,
the chie. engineer was determined to Make him. work,
other men were below, and a sick man was below at his
"Work, but here was a strong able man who would not work,
and there was nothing very wrong in the chief engineer
ordering him to be taken down below, and if he
did not work, to tie him up ; or in Mitchell's obeying the
order of his superior officer. The fore stoke-hole was the
coolest place in the whole ship when she was on her way,
and this was where Lander was tied up. He was not placed
before the fires. They did not tie him in the after stoke-
hole, which everybody was glad to get out of, and which
was the hottest place, and those witnesses who said that
they could not • stop five minutes in the place were stating
that which was grossly exaggerated and untrue. They had
the evidence of those who knew more about it. It was
impossible to say that there was any danger in this man
being placed in this position. He was placed in a
position immediately above where the men had a
box upon which the men sat down to rest themselves.
The man might have, as Dr. Schmidt had said, a
disease of the constitution which no skill could discover,
and the effects of the climate, and his being unaccustomed
to the work, might have killed him. There was not
another man on board that ship that would have suffered
Winjury by the same punishment.. He said that Robert
ilson was the man who originated the prosecution, and
Robert Wilson was put in irons because of a .disp.ute be-
tween him and the chief engineer, and Wilson denied that
in the box, but it was in evidence previously. Wilson was
therefore telling that which was untrue. It was his malice
against the chief engineer that, originate this prosecution,
and it was against the chief engineer only that he laid
information. The chief engineer was taken first, and when
the police inquired into the case, and knowing the excitement
there was in this country at this time as to the charges against
officers in ships, they put Mitchell in the case. He would
leave the case in the
.jury's hands, submitting that the pri-
soner at the bar was justified in believing that what he did
was by the orders of the captain, and that •it was such a
slight act that he might properly do, and that he did it
without any malice whatever. He concluded by again
reminding them of the character of the prisoner at the bar,
' and the probability of Landor having died from the effects
of the climate and other causes, and could not at all be ex-
pected to ensue from the acts of the prisoner ; and if they
came to the conclusion that the prisoner was guilty, they
would say that it was of the smallest offence that could be
well committed by an officer on board a ship.
The learned Judge, in summing up, stated that the crime
with which the prisoner was charged, was that of causing
the death of Thomas Lanier, on board the steamship
Bogota, of 1,125 tons, on her passage from Rio to Liver-
pool, by tying him to a ladder, in a place called the stoke-
hole. Whether the place was properly so called or not, he
would not say. It would be for him to state the law to the
jury, and their duty to take the law from him, and having
considered the facts, to give their opinion on the case. He
agreed with the learned council who had addressed them,
that it was necessary that they should banish from their minds
anything that they had heard of the case, or any opinion
which they might have formed•on it, and confine themselves
to the facts as they came before them. The law of the
country was, that any person who caused the
death of another was prima facie guilty of murder. But
it was for them to consider whether the deceased was placed
in such a position by the prisoner, knowing it to be such
as would endanger life, or do him grievous bodily harm. If
a man did to another that which, according to ordinary
experience, is calculated to endanger life —that was,
if another should come to his death—it would be
then to draw the distinction between murder and man-
slaughter. They must, therefore, consider the circumstances
under which the prisoner had tied the man. The question
was—was his leaving him there likely to cause his death ?
If not, then it would be their duty to find him guilty of
manslaughter. If they thought that, under ordinary cir-
cumstances, the man was placed In such a position as to
cause his death, and put in that position by the prisoner,
then be was guilty of murder, but if not, then they must
find for manslaughter. He would, first of all, call their
attention to the question, whether or not the man's death
was caused by his being placed in the stoke-hole. He
would assume from the time, that not one of the cries which
were said to be heard in the forecastle was heard by the
prisoner. The time was said to be somewhat less than half
an hour which the man was kept in the place, and when he
was taken out he was said to be breathing. Stertoriously
efforts appeared to have heen made for his recovery,
a short time after he was released from the position
in which he had been placed, and the medical man said he
was of opinion that the man had died from apoplexy,
which might have been accelerated by being confined in a
heated place. The captain seemed to have been more
anxious that the man should be a passenger than a stoker,
and he stated that he gave no authority whatever to have
such punishment inflicted on, the man. The fact was the
captain could give no such authority. There was no legal
authority to tie up the man is that place. His Lordship
then went over the entire evidence, pointing out to the jury
such portions of it as was necessary to take into their more
immediate consideration. He concluded by observing that
if the jury thought the fit of apoplexy was brought
on by being confined in that stoke hole. They
must then consider whether in the ordinary experiance
of mankind, prisoner must have known that the position of
the man was such as would do him serious bodily harm.
If they were of opinion that such was the case, they ought
to find for murder. If the man had been placed there
without any intention of doing him bodily harm, then they
ought to find for manslaughter, and if they were of opinion
that the act had not been committed at all, then they should
acquit him. The jury after a few minute's consultation
returned a verdict of " Manslaughter." The prisoner was
then asked if he had anything to say why the court should
not proceed to pass sentence upon him ? He said, " I got
the strictest orders from Mr. Buchanan to tie the man up,
or I never would have thought of doing so, and when I did
tie him there, it was not thought that it would do him any
harm, or. I should never have done it." His Lordship
then proceeded to pass sentence upon him, he said, :
Archibald Mitchell, you have been convicted of the offence
of manslaughter, committed on the high seas. by tying the body
of this man, Thomas Landor, to a ladder en the stoke-hole of
the steamer Bogota, on board of which you were second
engineer. The jury, in pronouncing a verdict of manslaugh-
ter, have acquitted you of the greater offence of murder.
You, therefore, stand convicted of having:caused the death of
another by your own action. You did notjtake the:advice of
another, such asjwould have allowed himself to reflect on the
circumstances of the case, whether it were likely to do
grievous bodily harm, but you have to a very great extent
had the whole of the responsibility. If you had been con-
victed of the greater offence, you would have expatiated on
the scaffold for the crime. I do rejoice that the jury,
after a very full investigation of the circumstances of the
case, has, with propriety—as I doubt not in the evidence
that has, been sifted, that the witnesses were to speak the
truth, the whole trnth, and nothing but the truth—they have
come to the conclusion that they ought, in my opinion,
to have come to, that of convicting you of
the less offence. If the evidence of some of the
witnesses that had been called against you had
been established, and that you had expressed yourself by the
expressions said to have been used on that occasion---if it
had been established that you turned a deaf ear to the out-
cries of deceased---if it had been shown that, instead of
going to release the man at once, you had been serving
under no lawful authority---if instead of relieving him at
once, you went to the chief engineer to consult his views.
If all these statements had been established against you, it
would unquestionably have been a case of murder. This
feature of the case has been wisely considered by the jury.
One circumstance has been made out against you which is
of great consequence, that when you were to see the state of
the man, and found the person that you had lashed to the
ladder in the state he was, did you do your duty with regard
to the man you had maltreated. Instead of cutting him
down as you ought to have done, you went off
to receive orders from the chief engineer, instead
of at once cutting him down. This tells against you very
much, because it shows that
.you were the ready instrument
in the hands of the chief engineer in this horrid treatment
of this unfortunate man. You were an instrument in his
hand to do that which neither of you had any right to do.
You tied up the man, and after having found that death
was about to ensue, you allowed him to hang up till you
should consult your authority. What may be said about
the expressions said to be used by you and the seamen who
gave evidence against you, may be allowed some strange
statements when thinking over this terrible catastrophe, '
though they should not have carried it into their evidence,
still they, might be expected to express indignation. It
may be that they have been guilty of some exaggerations,
but it is clearly established that you found that man in
that place after having your attention called to him, and
having committed an act of cruelty upon him.
you were told that he was in a:state of danger, you did not
proceed forthwith to relieve him from the state of danger in
which yon had placed him. Ido not know whether it was
possible for you to rescue your victim from the death which
followed. Ido not know if by one act of yours, you could
have made amends for the offence which in your act you
committed, but in the mind of a humane man, it was your
first duty to endeavour to rescue him. With regard to the
kind of discipline which your learned counsel has said
should exist on board of yours, or any other ship, that one
officer should obey another as they went down from the
master to the man, seems to be the impression which has
got into your mind, and you go to your superior for orders,
instead ohftfothrcattuott
nt
ithsiaant
acknowledged
ce
knit
dhuaoeonnwm, e aewnd
Yourhgdoe od9ot
f,e
hrae
annhvdcaeevbii
aysnngas
ios
nwe
jdr u
roioori
kiu.noesgua,os did what
yois uma an
climate
the man's constitution, has now got a little
monenhyeeaff.troedlicttianeokrnaee
to his wife and to his family. He goes on board a vessel
that is commanded and manned bynglishmen ; and this