Star.
London, England, 1802-02-22 00:00:00

his duty, in giving hie( four Joien lalkti. is
were then torn off, and he *as feited up
filictrtsis throuds and flogged, with an untifually
large fit, With overhanded knots, the Captain
[landing by with (word drawn, and the other de-
fendants (landing by alto: When he had received
a dozen lathes, the firft officer, Mr. Barker, held
up his hand as a fignal for the boatfwain to flop ;
but the Captain ordered him to go on; and, when
he had received two dozen or more, he begged,
for GOD'S fake, for a draught of water; this was
not granted, and he received the remainder of the
puntliment : after which, when taken down, he
was ordered to fall into the ranks, where he re-
mained for half of three quarters of an hour, with
his bare back expofed to the fun. His back was
feverely cut and very bloody. One witnefs how-
ever, (wore that a piece of a thin, or fume other
covering, was thrown over his back.
Mr. Class, for the defendants, Paid, that though,
from peculiar circumstances, his clients had found
it impoffible to put a legal jullification on the face
of the record; though he was aware that the Jury
mull return a verdia for the plaintiff; yet, from
the witnedes whom he thould call, he would
prove, that, though not legally jullifiable, the con=
duet of the defendants had been ftrongly marked
with humanity, was highlypraifeworthy, and would
induce the Jury to return a verdia with damages
as (mall as poffible.
On the part of the defendants, it was reprefent-
ed, that the plaintiff, with upwards of twenty
other difcharged foldiers, were received on board
the Walfingbam only three days previoufly to that
on which the men were ordered to quarters; that
the officer who delivered them charged Mr. Bar-
ker, the chief mate, the captain not being on board,
to watch them attentively, as feveral of them were
of a mutinous difpofition, and would excite a dif-
turbance if pofftble. The plaintiff, Connor, was
pointed out as particularly of this defcription; and
his certificate of difcharge, figned by the Marquis
Wellefley, reprefented him as a dangerous and (e-
-ditions charader, and unfit to remain longer in
the fervice. It appeared too, that the plaintiff had
been degraded from his rank as a ferjeant to that
of a commit man. It was (worn, that when the
defendant, Campbell, delivered his orders to the
plaintiff, the plaintiff d—d the quarters, (aid he
knew the exercife as well, or better, than any man
on board ; that the officers were none of them
gentlemen; that the Captain was only an old wo-
man on board, and that if the (hip were in action,
he would not fight unlefs he pleated: That when
on deck, he d—d the Captain, dared him to pu-
Mill him, (wore if he flogged him he would make
him pay for it, and, if the !hip were in action, he
would not fight, but the Captain might defend her
himfelf. His language and manner were fuch as
excited a fpirit of mutiny among the other foldiers;
and the officers, excepting Mr. Barker, who
thought it imprudent to leave them alone, all
thought it necetfary to quit the deck for the por-
pofe of arming themfelves. When they returned,
the Captain held a confultation with his officers, to
determine whether he ought to be punithed, which
being decided in the affirmative, he addretfed the
men, and Mixed, if any one would (peak in favour
4 the plaintiff ? No one (poke, and the punith-
Malt was infli&ed, but was by no means of a fe-
-1 were nature, as it was infliited by an old man,
hardly able to crawl, who is lance dead. He
bore the punilhmcnt well, and his back was injur-
ed but very little.
Mr. Juftice LAWS xc a rummed up the evidence
very briefly, obferving, he had no doubt but the
verdia mull be returned for die plaintiff, and the
only queftion to determine was, the amount of the
damages. He Paid, it was evident that the plain-
tiff, being a patlenger, was not amenable to the
difcipline of the flip, and therefore was not &b-
-its to punifhment for difobedience. His conduit
had been highly reprehenfible, as he had held im-
proper language to the officers, in d—ing them,
after having refuted what no honourable and well
difpofed perfon ought to have refuted; for, if he
were hitnfelf a proficient in the exercife, it would
have been more proper for him to have attended to
it, that his behaviour might not excite difobedience
and mutiny in others. He Paid, in all cafes where
wanton infults.had been committed, it was necef-
fary to award heavy damages; but where the'
conduit of the plaintiff had been fuch as to pro-
voke Wilk, it had always been admitted in miti-
gation of damages.
The Jury immediately returned a verdia of
tool. damages for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FE3.so.
MACAULY V. ammuhtur.

The plaintiff was a labourer employed at the
Rores of the Tower, the defendant was proprietor
of a waggon, which, on its entrance into the fore-
bonfe yard, paled over the plaintiff's foot, broiled
it fevoulT, breaking Tome of the (mailer bones,
and injuring the tendons • in confequeiice of which
injury the plaintiff bad been two months confined
to his bed at the bofpital, and was dill much difa-
bled. This aftion was for damages for that injury
attained through the negligence or unikilfulnels
of defendant's waggoner.
-Ist the courfe of trial it appeared a very
doubtful queffion, whether this accident was or
was not owing to the negligence of the waggoner ?
e.-
The defendant was fitting on a bench, which i
appears was an ufual feat fur the labourers in t e
Imes of the Tower, at the right-hand fide of t e
Rose-houfe yard, and at the time the waggon en-
tered was weep. The fiorehoufe yard into which
the lemon entered was very (mall, being only
fixtrfoileet in length and twenty-two in breadth;
its des yard it was ufual for waggons to turn be-
fon they anlealledat the aore-houfe ; in order to
ate k& wagoner had gone fonear the right hand
illik dm dus accident happened. It was proved
**dm defeadeat's waggoner was in the place
• tbabdriestn; of waggons ufually keep, dote to the
UMW beeft, and on the near fide, and that there
IMO/ semarkable negligence or inattention on
Ibio fiat; boiro vs behalf of ,the plaintiff, it was
Om* costeaded, that even a :411 negligence
pradamng is great an injury, intitled plaintiff to
,seaseer tam defendant; that it was the wag.
- "70 before 114 eiPrid the yard, to look