Star.
London, England, 1801-12-25 00:00:00

■BVM V. SLAM

• This aclion Was brought by the Plaintiff, who
math' commander of a Danifh velfel called the
ichleen, igainit the Defendant, who was Captain
if the likiable privat:er of Liverpool, to recover
damages for an alledged trefpids, ail:melt, and
fdk imprifonment.
Maria Chriftianfand, a native of Norway; hat-
ed, that Ile was a paffenger from Carthagena on
board the Plaintiff's veird, which fhe undet flood to
be boned from MelEna to Altona, in June, 1799.
That they were hailed off the toaft of Spain by
the Defendant, who ordered the Plaintiff to
come od board with his papers. That there was
;very hli fea at the time, and the Plaintiff al,
lodged this as an excufe for not complying imme-
stely with the requeft of the Defendant, who
damn his vefrel again(! the Plaintiff's, which
tterby received injury; and was ia fome danger.
That the Captain and the Witncfs being at length
got an board the Defendant's s:effal, were detain-
al prifoners in the cabin all night, and the neat
atornin,;, were fent back to the velf;l of the Plain-
itin a boat which was partly filled with water,
and from which the f.:: op to bale' otit the Water
bad been 'previoufly taken away by the Defen-
dant; the fea (till continuing rough and temp:f-
utons. That on their return to the Plaintiff's vef-
fel, they found it had been plundered of mnft of
the valuables and provifions which were or, hoard.
Lord At.vAal FY would not permit anycvidence
to be gone into relative to the taking away any
property on board the Plaintiff's vefTel, obferving
that this was only a perronal Mtion for Affiult
and falfe imprifonment, and that any queft:on re-
lative to the property, mug be tried before the
Court of Admiralty, or at any rate, come before a
Court of Common Law, in the fhape of an adlion
spina the owners.
The Witnefs being afked by the Jury if the De-
fendant ftruck the Plaintiff, or laid hands upon
him, the anfwered in the negative.
A legal argument caned between Mr. Serjeant
Coteau. and Mr. Serjeant BES a for the Plaintiff,
sad Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD and Mr. Serjeant
VAUGHAN for the Defendant ; it being contended
by the latter, that the defendant was jullificd in
enteifing the right of fearch, to difeover whether
the Plaintiff's veld was proper prize or not, and
that the Plaintiff had no right of anion ; and by
the former that the Plaintiff had a right of *Flinn
for any perfonal injury inflikfted on him by the
Defendant.

Lord ALVANLEY quoted a Cafe which was de.
teneintil after a fo.emn hearing in the Court of
King's Bench, where the vetlel taken was deemed
no inize, and it was yet deter mined that the parties
taking rofreffion of the velfel were not liable to
an/. AftiMl. It had then been thrown nut, he
armed, by Mr. Jultice WII.LES, that if any
snalicicus perfnnal injury was olTerr-d to any party
in the courfe ref exereifing the right of fearch or of
eaptute, an anion might perhaps Ile wither!,
therefore, this aftinn to proceed, that it might he
Peen, %flu:tiler any malicious excas of injury was
committed by the Defendant AV4:I" and above the
neeeffary means of erercifing the right he was in-
tided to ?

Part of the depaitions of two marinerc, one be-
!ringing to the Rebecca, and the other to tile Nim
Mei which had been formerly taken bcf,re Lord
Firma, were read, which proved several threats
to have been ufiel by the Defendant towards the
Plaintiff, but no perfonal violence.
The Letter of Marque being produced on the
Part of the Defendant,
Mr. Serjearet SHEPHERD was proceeding on be-
half of the Defendant, when the Jury declared
,ernfelves faaisfied that no malicious perfonal
`"fence had been ufed by the Defendant towards
ntintiff.

! A right of reply, however, being claimed by
Mr. Serjeant COCK ELL, it was agreed to proceed.
The Letter ofMarque was proved to be on board
the Defendant's veffel, when it left England.
Mr. Scrjeant COCKELL contended in reply, that
the Defendant had ufed unn-celfary and malirious
excefs of violence again fl the Plaintiff, for which he
was anfwerable in damages in a Court of Common
Law, and that the Plaintiff's Vail not being ac-
tually captured, there was no remedy in the Court
of Admiralty.
Lord A LVA,IL EY repeat:A his former obferva-
tions, and commented upon the evil confequences
which would cnfue, if every perfon on board a vef-
fel made prize of, or fearched, was to have a right
of adion againft the Captain of the King's flip, or
privateer, by whom the right of capture or fearch
was ezercifed. It was a queftion, however, for
the Jury to confider, whether, in this cafe, there
was any malicious excefs of perfonal violence, on
the part of the Defendant towards the Plaintiff?—
His Lordthip was proceeding to fum up the evi-
dence, when the Jury declared themfelves perfeelly
fatisfied, and obferved, his Lordfhip need not
trouble himfelf farther Upon the fubjeih
The Jury then returned a verdia for the De-
fendant, exprefsly finding, that the Defendant had
not malicioufly ufed any perfonal violence towards
the Plaintiff.