The Sun.
London, England, 1822-05-22 00:00:00

LAW INT EI4LIG ENCE.

•
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY 21.
This dav the Sittings after Easter Term for London aim
meneed before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, at Guildhall.

SMITH V. •BIGNELL.
Mr. COMYN stated, that the plaintiff had declared for seve-
ral assaults, to which the defendant had pleaded that he was hot
guilty.
Mr. SCARLETT opened the circumstances of the case to the
Jury. The plaintiff was a seaman on board the East India
Company's ship called the Marchioness of Ely, and the de-
fendant was fourth mate on board the same vessel. When the
ship was in the Sirampoo river, which goes up to Canton in
China, the defendant committed on him a brutal and unpro-
voked assault, which the Jury would hear described by the wit-
nesses. He (Mr. Scglett) was far from desiring very nicely
to scrutinize the proceedings of marine officers, who were com-
pelled to insist on the most prompt performance of duty from
the seamen ; but, at the same time, it was important that these
seamen should know, that if they suffered flagrant injustice,
they would find redress from a jury of their country, as this feel.-
ing alone would prevent them from taking violent revenge, in
the moment of their indignation, and perhaps filling the ship'
with disorder and mutiny.
James Wilson, who had been master at arms on board the
Marchioness of Ely, swore that on the '24th of August, 1820,
as the ship was proceeding up the river, the defendant called to
the men to come on the forecastle, and immediately ran through
them, striking right and left, till he came to the plaintiff, who
was watching some ropes in the waste of the vessel. He was
in a passion, and directly knocked the plaintiff down, doubled
a rope, and struck him at least half a dozen blows as he lay on
the ground. He then ordered him to go to the forecastle, whi-
ther he followed him, knocked him twice down again, and hav-
ing knotted another rope, proceeded to beat him with it as log
as he could stand over him. The next day Smith's person ex-
hibited the appearance of having been severely beaten.,
On his cross-examination by Mr. GURNEY; the witness ad,
mitted that he had been degraded from his situation, and sect
home before the mast. It also appeared that the. defendant
had called to the men to assist him, and that they did not im-
mediately obey his orders.
Two other seamen were called who had seen the defendant
strike the plaintiff at other times ; but who knew nothing of
the circumstances which led to the assaults.
Mr. GURNEY addressed the Jury for the defendant, obe
serving that it was evident the plaintiffhad been doing nothing,
and all the other men helping him, as in the caricature, when
required to do their duty. He commented on the testimony of
the witness Wilson, and contended that he had been induced,
byhis own degradation, to give a false colouring to the as-
sault, and greatly to exaggerate the injury. If the plaintiff
had really been beaten in the manner described, he must have
sought the aid of the surgeon of the vessel, who in that case
would have been his best witness, but whom he had not ven-
tured to call.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the evidence, oh.
serving, that as there was no justification, the plaintiff mast
have a verdict, but that it was for• them to say to what &i-
-mages he was entitled.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages la