The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-14 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS, Juzia 13.

The Lord Chancellor, the Marquis of Queensberry, and the
Eat of Ilchester, sat in the House of Lords to hear Scotch
appeals. Their Lordships were occupied the whole morning
with the part heard appeal of Walker v. Craig, which possessed
no point of public interest.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 13.

THE KING V. HATTEICK.

This was an indictment under a statute of William 111,
against the defendant, Captain George Battrick, of the Hebe.
bound from Liverpool to Buenos Ayres, for refusing to bring
back from the latter port two of the crew, which he took with
him from this country.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (with whom was Mr. SEEPRERD)
stated the case for the prosecution. He said the statute of
William the Third was passed in order to prevent masters of
vessels from leaving any of their crew in a foreign country in a
state of destitution, and it was provided that if any master
wilfully refused to bring back any of his crew, and left them
on shore, he was liable to be indicted for a misdemeanor, and
punishable at the discretion of the Court. The Learned Gen-
tleman having stated the circumstances of the case, called the
following witnesses :

Isaac Pensonby stated that he was shipped by the de.
fendant as mate of the Hebe, which sailed from Liverpool for
Buenos Ayres, where they arrived in April, MO. On Thurs-
day, the 24th of June, he, Haines, the Carpenter, and Capes the
seaman, were ordered by the defendant to row him ashore, a
distance of seven miles, the vessel being in the outer roads.
When ashore they took some provisions aboard the boat, and
at six o'clock in the evening the master came down to the
beach and ordered them to return to the vessel, in.
tending himself to remain on shore for the night. Capes
was rather intoxicated, but witness was sober. Threemen, who
stated that the captain had given them leave to be put on board
the Lavinia in witness's boat, came on board, and they werk
put on board the Lavinia. They then called to see a person
on board another vessel, and in a few minutes proceeded
towards the Hebe, it being then dark, but her signal light was to
be seen. The wind and current being against them, they were un.
able to reach her, and having no kedge anchor on board, they cast
out a piece of pig iron; however, the boat drifted, and in the
morning they had lost sight of land and vessel. They then
deemed it best to make for the Colonia Islands, but meeting
with a French vessel they were received on board, and after
being absent all Friday and Saturday, on the evening of the
latter day they arrived again in the outer roads of Buenos Ayres.
On the following morning they went on board the Hebe, when
they found a new mate and carpenter on board, and defendant
rc fused to see them. The witness and Haines offered to go
to the Vice-Consul, and it was agreed they should do so; the
defendant then ordered them to put their goods into the boat,
and they went on shore; on visiting the Vice-Consul, the
latter advised the Captain to take the witness and Haines
back, or to abide by the consequences. The Cap-
tain then offered to pay their wages if they would
leave the ship, and they agreed to do so ; the captain in conse-
quence said he would go to his merchants for some money,
and meet them on the beach ; when the master came to the
beach he refused to take them on board, but pushed off, and
next morning the Hebe sailed. The witness, whose wages
were 4/. a month, did not receive anything, and had to take
his passage to England in another vessel.

The witness was cross-examined by Mr. PLarr, but nothing
material was elicited.

Robert Haines gave similar testimony. On cross-examina.
tion, however, he admitted that there was a kedge anchor in
the boat, but it was put in for ballast, and was under the beef;
besides, it was not the boat's anchor, but the ship's, and they
had no rope sufficient to cast it.

Mr. PLATT, in addressing the jury, contended that the
story about being driven out to sea was a trumped
up story, and that by being absent two days without
leave was a desertion according to the provisions of
the 37th Geo. 111., which stated that a seaman, who was absent
from his ship 24 hours without permission, should be so
seemed, and have forfeited his wages.

George Harding, a seaman on board the Hebe, and
also nephew of the defendant, stated that on the voyage out
Haines expressed hit intention of deserting the vessel
when she arrived at Buenos Ayres, and getting work
as a carpenter, because better wages were paid there. He also
stated that at the time when the Captain was to meet the pro.
secutors at the beach, to go on board, Ponsonby was not to be
found, and Haines, although requested to go on board refused
to do so.

Captain Bristow of the Mars, was at Buenos Ayres and
remembered the two men leaving the Hebe. At the time
they were absent, as they said, in consequence of being driven
out to sea by bad weather, he said the weather was so mode..
rate, that nothing but very great neglect would have occa-
sioned their being driven to sea.

The SoLiaToa-GENEasL rose to address the Jury.
The Jury interrupted him and said, they were unanimously
of opinion that the defendant was guilty.
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion that the defendant
was guilty of a violation of the Act of Parliament ; but pos-
sibly there might be some circumstances which, when the de-
fendant was brought up for judgment, would be much in
mitigation.