The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-08-20 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL gTANDARD.

HOMICIDE ON THE HIGH SEAS.

Considerable excitement was caused in this town on
Wednesday last, by the return to the port of the American
ship Thomas Bennett, burthen 483 tons, which had sailed
hence for Charleston on the 3d instant, and put back on
the Bth, in consequence of her captain, Elisha Lindsay
Halsey, having been killed on board, by the cook, John
Kent. Shortly after the vessel's arrival in the river, se-
veral constables went on board, and brought on shore the
body of the deceased captain ; the alleged murderer, who
had been put in irons immediately after the tragical event,
was also brought on shore in custody. Captain Halsey,
an American, and part owner of the ship, was a married
man of respectable connexions. He was a muscular man,
and about forty-five years of age. The accused, John
Kent, is a native of Liverpool. and has a wife residing at
27, Great Howard-street. He is of middle stature, with
a rather pleasing countenance, by no means indicative of
ferocity of disposition. The crew consisted of two mates,
five seamen, and two boys. The melancholy transaction
took place on the afternoon of the Bth instant, at which
time the vessel was a little to the westward of the Bay of
Biscay. The cook was taken before the magistrates on
Wednesday and Thursday, and the following are the heads
of the evidence :

Mr. Davenport defended the prisoner.
William Gibbon, the first mate, being sworn, said the
ship belonged to Charleston, and sailed as above stated.
On Thursday, the Sth, in consequence of the captain being
killed by the cook, they put back, and arrived on the 14th.
They were then in lat. 46 50, long. 9 57. At three in the
afternoon the captain went forward to the galley to see
after some cooking. In a minute or two at the furthest
he beard a noise on deck, and one of the boys (Evans)
came and told him something, and he ran forward and
found the captain lying on his back on the deck, with
blood on his left jaw. He raised his head, but he never
spoke, and died in less than a minute. Witness did not
see any wound given. The cook, and no one else, was
standing by quietly looking oh. He did not see anything
in the cook's hand, nor did the latter speak. Witness
asked him why he had done the deed, and he replied, " If
I had not done so he would have killed me." He was put
in irons. He was not aware of a quarrel between the cap-
tain and the cook. The captain previously appeared to be
under the excitement of liquor : not beastly drunk, bu
intoxicated. On the previous afternoon and two previous
evenings he was also similarly excited. There had been a
previous dispute about the captain's dinner. The captain
had ordered dinner at one o'clock, but found fault with
it and ordered another, saying, " Get dinner of soup ; and
that d—d quick." The second dinner was not supplied
before the transaction took place. Witness said he could
not find the ship's articles on board. On cross-examina-
tion, he admitted that the captain had been drunk on three
successive days, and when intoxicated be was very violent,
and went stamping about the deck. The prisoner, so far
as he knew, had behaved very well generally on board.
George H. Munro said, he was steward on board. He
stated that when the first dinner was cooked and put on
the table, the captain ordered him to call the mates to it.
One of them (Grennell) would not come ; the captain
asked him why, and he (Grennell) said he did not know
it was his (tbe captain's) orders. The captain then said
to witness, " God d—n you, you have cooked for the
mates, go and cook for me." Witness said he was willing
to do so. The witness noticed some other disagreements
with the captain, showing that the latter was much excited
and out of temper, and had a jealousy of some fancied at-
tentions witness had paid to the mates. Witness went
and killed a fowl to cook for him ; but in two minutes after
came to the galley and drove him from it, saying, the cook
should do it. Witness then went into the pantry, but
deceased drove him out of it. Witness returned to the
galley, and whilst he was talking to the cook, the captain
came up. The cook had brought some potatoes. The
captain said, " Give me my dinner ;" and was told all was
ready. Witness had a large carving knife in his hand,
which the captain snatched from him, and made a spring
with one foot in the galley, and told the cook to come out.
He seized the cook by the shirt or neck, on the left side.
The captain said to the cook, " D—n you, come out of
the galley•" The cook said, " Let me go, Capt. Halsey,
and I will come out." He had hold of the cook with his
right hand. In pulling him out of the galley the cook,
witness thought, struck him. The captain held the carv-
ing knife in his left hand. They both came out of the
galley together, the captain first, pulling the cook. Wit-
ness then saw blood on the captain's cheek. He (witness)
ran for the second mate. He soon afterwards saw the
captain dead. The captain had had a glass of brandy and
bitters that morning before breakfast, and after breakfast
a good deal of brandy, and he was intoxicated. He had
not been sober from the Monday before. He appeared
flighty, and quite a different man after leaving Liverpool.
He did not see him make a blow with the carving knife.
[The knives were produced. The one the captain had was
a long carving knife, worn thin and pointed. The one
with which the cook had stabbed him was a sailor's
common knife, generally worn in a sheath, with a rude
wooden handle.]—ln cross-examination, witness said,
the cook was a good man, and the captain always spoke
well of him. One night the captain was crazy, and broke
the speaking trumpet against the side of the cabin. He
did not think him in his senses from Monday. On Tues-
day he took out his pistols, but did not use them. Wit-
ness feared some mischief, and therefore took away the
powder, and informed the cook.
James Smith, a seaman, who was ten or fifteen yards
from the galley, heard the captain threaten to haul the
cook out. Hearing a moaning noise he ran forward, and
saw the mate holding up the captain, who was dying. He
saw a knife on one of the water casks. He asked the
cook why he had done it, and he said he could not help it ;
for if he bad not done it, the captain would have done it
to him.

Albert Grinnell, the second mate, heard the captain
order the cook out of the galley, and the cook say, " Let
me go, and I'll come out." Witness went aft, and soon
after saw the captain wounded and dying. He appeared
that day to be intoxicated. There was no mutinous dis-
position amongst the crew.
Edward Hall, an American seaman, saw the captain
with one foot in the galley. He had the cook by the
throat, and a knife in the other hand. He was dragging
the cook out. He got forward, and the captain was then
down, and dying. The captain was not to say stupidly
drunk ; be was drunk enough to be " ugly," by which he
meant malicious. He went about the deck stamping and
swearing. The night before, while witness was at the
wheel, he heard some loud talk in the cabin, and the cap-
tain came out with a pistol in his hand. He said he would
be d-d but he would have his victuals, or he would
gcl
gr
rnekde drunker
againstthan wtihte-
ndeies,s and Ihi ee
fowroeualede
nd ihe alone.m .He
talked to himself in the round-house,
round-house. He Htheenwsatsa
and when he came out said be could shoot half a dozen
men at a time.
tiinlen his
standing. hand, and
_w mheande waitbnelosws
gaott the
up
William Divine, an English seaman on board, saw the
captain spring into the galley and haul out the cook. The
ccaopotkainh, wadhao kwnaifse
the captain had fallen. He was intoxicated.

Thomas Ewens, an American boy before the mast,
said, he was thirty or forty feet from the galley. He
heard some one sing out ; went up, and saw the captain
lying on deck, and the cook standing over him. The
captain was not sober that day, nor had he seen him sober
from the time he left Liverpool. He heard some one say
during the scuffle, " Oh, don't John ; what have I done ?"
Did not know who said so.

Mr. G. Woods, surgeon, said he had examined the
body, in the dead-house. There were twelve external in-
juries of a severe character ;—three on the upper portion
of the sternum, three on the left side of the back, one on
the outside of the left shoulder, one over the lower part of
the sternum, one over the left lower jaw, one on the left
side of the lower region of the spine, one on the posterior
part of the right shoulder, one in the upper part of the
right breast. I conceive they have all been stab wounds,
but am not quite certain as to the one over the left shoul-
der. (The knife was shown.) This is just such a weapon
as would inflict such wounds. The character of the
wounds was sufficient to have produced death. The
principal wounds were the one on the right shoulder, and
the other over the breast ; both penetrated the lungs. I
consider that either of the last-described wounds would
have caused death. I have no doubt in the world that the
wounds on the body were the cause of death.
This being the whole of the evidence, Mr. Rushton,
after cautioning the prisoner as to what he should say,
said, that as the case had occurred at sea, and under the
American flag, he had some doubt whether he couldlbe
tried here or not. A representation of the facts had been
made to the American authorities, who might claim ju-
risdiction ; but if it were decided that he should be tried
here, he should have the advantage of a trial as speedily
as possible, and he would, therefore, remand him till
Monday, when the Assize Grand Jury would be sitting.
If they should hand him over to the American authorities,
all these depositions would be forwarded to the tribunal
before which he would be tried.

--The prisoner, with the advice of his solicitor, declined
to say anything, and was remanded till yesterday.
It is proper to state that in answer to questions put by
Mr. Davenport, every one of the witnesses said that the
prisoner was a good man, and did his utmost at all times
to give satisfaction, not only to the captain and officers,
but to all on board.

THE INQUEST.
This was held on Friday, before Mr. Curry. The gentlemen
constituting the ;jury were—John Fox, foreman; John Schofield,
Frederick Stacey, George Barnard Lightfoot, Francis Farrant
Chinn, Edward Musgrove, Nicholas Duckworth, Robert Mason,
Samuel Haines, Joseph Parton, James Laidlaw Cross, Christopher
George Tattersall, James Harsford Worry, and Harry Musgrove.
The same witnesses were examined as at the previous investiga-
tion before the magistrates, and nothing new was adduced—with
the exception of the fact that a female servant at the Grecian Hotel,
where the captain resided before he went to sea, stated that she
had never known him to be intoxicated while there, or even appar-
ently so. A captain of a vessel who had known him for many years,
also stated that he had never seen him intoxicated. This testi-
mony, however, not being relevant to the inquiry, was not taken in
writing.
In reference to the question put by Mr. Rushton, on Thursday,
as to the existence of any mutinous disposition on the part of the
crew,
the
thee
reason seamenwh
ya addressing
suchin g hi
ne Coroner,quiryshould
be made on the requested to be in-
formedpart of the magistrates, stating, that if any suspicion of the truth
of that insinuation got abroad, it would be ruinous to the character
of the whole ship's company, as no captain would take them with
such a stigma attached to them Mr. Henry Milding, the repre.
sentative of the American Consul, said the suggestion was made to
Mr. Rushton, he believed, by one of the magistrates on the bench,
in consequence of the number of wounds inflicted on the deceased.
No one stated that there was a mutiny, nor did any one now assert
that there had been such a thing.—The jury, one and all, expressed
their conviction that the slightest grounds did not exist for suspect-
ing any one on board of a mutinous, or even unfriendly disposition,
towards the captain.
The Coroner, in delivering his charge, after noticing the import•
ance of the case, said "there was one feature of extraordinary
novelty connected with the inquiry. Under the late treaty with
America, it was conditioned, that where a crime had been com-
mitted, and the parties committing it sought refuge, or should be
found in either country, upon a proper demand the authorities were
bound to hand them over. In this case it had so happened that
the offence had been committed on the high seas, and the reason the
case had been brought under his jurisdiction was, that the body had
been conveyed to this country. There was a marked difference
between the proceedings before him (the Coroner) and Mr. Rushton,
If an indictment were framed upon the depositions taken before Mr.
Rushton, and that indictment ignored by a grand jury, there was

an end of the case; but it was different in the. case of an indictment
framed upon the verdict of a coroners jury; for in this case the
prisoner could still be tried upon the inquisition. He did not know
what the American Consul might do, hui: an application had keen
made to have the cook given up, and the depositions taken before
Mr. Rushton had been sent to the Secretary of State, to which
there would be an answer in the course of the following day. He
said that there were three verdicts open to the jury. The first was
one of murder; the second manslaughter ; and the third homicide
de defendendo. He thought he need not dwell at any length on
the question of murder; for, if they believed the witnesses, there'
was an assault by the Captain. If so, it would cut the case down to
manslaughter; and with respect to that offence, and also on justifi-
able homicide, he quoted from lst East, P. C. , as to the " proof of
malice," in which it is stated that "the rule of law laid down is—
that a man may repel form by force in defence of his person, habi-
tation, or property, against one who manifestly intends or en-
deavours by violence or surprise to commit a known felony. In
these cases he is not obliged to retreat, but may pursue lice adver-
sary until he has secured himself from all danger; and if he kill
him in so doing, it is justifiable self-defence; as, on the other hand,
the killing by such felons, of any person so lawfully defending hint-
self, will be murder. But a bare fear of any of these offences, how-
ever well grounded, as that another lies in wait to take away the
party's life, unaccompanied by any overt act, indicative of such an
intention, will not warrant him in killing that other by NV ly of pre-
vention, there being no actual danger at the time."—Again, accord-
ing to Foster, in order to render the killing justifiable, it must ap-
pear that the act was done from mere necessity, and to avoid the
immediate commission of the offence; Thus, a person, who in
a case of mutual conflict, would excuse himself upon the ground of
self-defence, must show that before the mortal stroke given, he had
declined any further combat, and retreated as far as he could for
safety, and that he had killed his adversary through mere necessity,
and to avoid immediate death. If he failed in either of these cir-
cumstances, he will incur the penalty of manslaughter. It was also
stated by Blackstone—When both parties are actually combatting
at the time the mortal stroke is given, the slayer is guilty of man-
slaughter ; but if the slayer has not begun to fight, or (having be-
gun) endeavours to decline any further struggle, and afterwards be-
ing closely pressed by his antagonist, kills him' to avoid his own
destruction, this ishomicide, excusable by self-defence. If tbe Captain
went, as has been stated, and laid hold of the cook—being at that
time sober or drunk, mad or sane, it nothing mattered—and indi-
cated an intention of doing grievous bodily harm, and the cook had
no means of escaping from him, and it was evident his own life was
in danger, the cook\ was justified in taking away the life of the Cap-
tain. If they thought he might have got away without inflicting the
mortal wound, they would say so by their verdict.
The jury, after an absence of about fifteen minutes, returned a
verdict of justifiable homicide, in which the Coroner, for their sa-
tisfaction, expressed his perfect concurrence. The jury presented
the sum allowed them to the Northern Hospital.
The deportment of the prisoner (who is 32 years of age) during
the investigation before the magistrates, was most becoming. He
was not present at the inquest, though he might have claimed to be
so. He appeared to experience the deepest regret for the unfortunate
occurrence, independent of the effect it might have on his own fate.
The deceased Captain is described as having been powerful mus.
cular man, and though, from the evidence of some of the crew, it
would appear that he had occasionally drunk hard after his last
leaving Liverpool, the surgeon, who made the post mortem exa-
mination, stated that the liver was sound, and a letter appeared in
the Albion of yesterday, signed by a great number of respectable
parties, who state that they have been acquainted with the deceased
for many years, and never knew or heard that he was other than a
sober man.
We understand that copies of the depositions taken before the
Coroner have been forwarded to the head American Consul in Lon-
don, and that though some of the American authorities here appear
to be dissatisfied with the verdict given, two of his immediate rela-
tives are not of that opinion, and the probability is that no claim
will be made for his being handedi over for trial in America.