The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-08 00:00:00

touch the spots, even upon the second o eca.E.don
without producing pain, although I tried to. t3raw

his attention from what I was doing.
At the close of the case for the prosecutio•a,
Mr. Gunner submitted that there was no evident le
to go to the jury except on the count for a common
assault. _ _

After some discussion, the Recorder thought there
was evidence on all the counts but the second.-•for
false imprisonment.
Mr. Gunner then addressed the jury for the de-
fendant. He was not instructed to deny that the

assault had been committed, but he did deny the

severity of the flogging.

He presumed the jury

would believe the 1;4 was a skulker. It was clear

he came on board and intended to remain. there,

hat he had been on board ships before, and though

he said he did not feel the ship get under weigh, he
(Mr. Gunner) should show that the ship stopped
twice—when the staff-commander came on board,
and when he got off—and that it was impossible
for him not to have felt the stopping between

Plymouth and the breakwater. The boy himself
admitted that he took his boots off. The conclu-

SlOll, therefore, irresistibly was that the boy took
his boots off for the very purpose of concealing
himself till the ship had got outside the break-
water and well to sea. As to the flogging itself
he (Mr. Gunner) had no doubt it hurt the boy ;
but, although he said he could not sit down
for several days, it was evident he got over the side
of the vessel, and sat down in the boat directly. It
was said the boy was left without food or money on
the beach, but what could the captain do ? He was
bound to put the lad on shore at the first port, and
had he allowed him to remain he would probably
have received a severe reprimand from the Admi-
ralty. He thought that if the jury did not give
him a verdict of entire acquittal, they would at all
events not convict him on any other count but that
of a common assault.
Witnesses were then called for the defence. Most
of them were sailors on board defendant's vessel.
Two were magistrates who had seen the back of
the boy when the case was first heard before
them.

Sir Lewis Tobias Jones, K.C.8., Vice-Admiral,
said he had known Captain Simpson since 1838.
He was first lieutenant and doing duty as comman-
der in the Black Sea, and he was then of an ex-
tremely considerate disposition and kind to all
people under him, and his character had been so
ever since.
Captain Beckford said Captain Simpson was
senior lieutenant of the Princess Royal, of which
witness was the commander when in the Black
Sea, and there was nothing like harshness in his
conduct.

Mr. Gunner summed up his evidence, again con-
tending that there was no reason why the boy
should not have been landed had he been so dis-
posed, that the flogging had not been unnecessarily
severe, and that the defendant could not be con-
victed of a more serious offence than a common

assault.
Mr. Besley having addressed the jury in reply,
The Recorder, in summing up, said although some
of the facts were disputed, when the evidence came
to be considered there could be no difficulty in
coming to a conclusion. Ile (the Recorder) had
suggested an arrangement of the case, because the
lad only had sustained the injury, and he thought
he should be compensated for it ; but the case had
gone to the jury, and whatever punishment was in-
flicted, the boy would receive no benefit from it.
There could be no doubt that an assault had been
committed, but the question was whether the flog-
ging was so much in excess of what he had deserved;
although the defendant bad by law no right to beat
him at all. It appeared to him that it was a mis-
take to have used a rope's end at all. Had a cane
been used, it would have been better ; but a rope's
end had been used—the only thing at hand—and
he thought there could be no doubt that such a
chastisement could not be otherwise than severe.
There was no justification for the assault ; but he
thought there was a total absence of malice, although
he would leave the point to the jury. If there was
no more than a severe flogging, he thought a verdict
for a common assault was that which would beat
suit the circumstances. Were the marks more than
the ordinary consequences of a flogging, or were
they those of something more than an ordinary
chastisement? Beyond the heedlessness, the thought-
lessness, and carelessness with which Captain Simp-
son had acted, it appeared to him that nothing
serious could be imputed to
Mr. Besley asked the Recorder to put it to the
jury whether they believed malice had been proved.
The Recorder said he would do so, explaining to
them that malice was, in law, either express or im-
plied. No express malice had been proved in this
case, and, so far as his opinion was concerned, there
were no circumstances from which malice could be

inferred.
The jury retired at a quarter to four to consider
their verdict, and after an absence of half an hour
they returned into court.
On being asked by the Clerk of the Peace if they
bad agreed on their verdict, they said they had.
The Clerk of the Peace—Do you find the defen-
dant guilty or not guilty ?—The Foreman : We
find him guilty of malice, but not of malice afore-
thought.
A verdict of guilty was taken in the whole of the
counts, and
After much deliberation, the Recorder addressed
the defendant, stating that he disagreed with the
verdict ; that while he did not think it necessary to
inflict a degrading sentence, he was bound to pass a
severe pecuniary punishment. The sentence was
that the defendant pay a fine of £lOO, and that he
be imprisoned until the same be paid.
Mr. Bullen applied for the costs of the prosecution,
but a long discussion on the point took place, which
ended in the Recorder refusing the application.