The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-05-30 00:00:00

AMERICAN JIIRISPRUEENCE.
Muth. Court. April 29, 1922-
TIMOTST Lava b. MAX AAAAA CARTWRIGUT.-111-
terestleg decision as to the Captain's right on board
a Merebestows, to chastise his seems ; also. of
the mate on board the same, and. when, All bow he
may exercisethat right. o ..
'lbis was as actios of Assault mid Batt ry, alleged
to have bees connaitted by Captain Cart!t ht the de-
fendant. Muter of the ship South Caro is Packet,
recently from St. Croix, upon Laye the plekatiff, who
was steward of the ship. It appeared is li'stimony
that on the outward voyage the Cook mark, and
Lay*, being the Steward, was next is order, isigeed
s-i, •
by the Captain to act in his place, t.
One wonting he spoiled the brealtfasij* toil slo-
venly thekery—bent the rice, so that lt,was not eat-
able; and boiled the mackerel and potatoes together
in ditt water. and is a dirty kettle which Ati.not
been cleaned after the precediag day's cookerf.,!rhei
Captain fee his punishment lashed him up tyis
thumbs to the main abroad, and there kept him 'kept
two hours. Ninon!, the first witness, made oat oe
peolehmest to be severe and creel ; he said the plain-
tiff could set stand fairly upon his feet. and was so far
suspended by iris thumbs. that when takes down they
were swollen to that degree he could not use-them,
in c,ousequan of the severe infliction. The exact
truth of the ease, however, seemed to be that the plain-
tiff was not so tightly bound by the thumbs as to oc-
casion any great degree of pain ; and could stand
perfeedy !Fright and free upon his feet; and that
none of die crew heard soy complaint from him what-
ever, after he was let down; the single wheels afore-
said only excepted. It was also alleged. that the Cap-
tain combiitted seethes assault and' battery on the
plaintiff on the return visyage.
Edw. Burr, Esq. conducted the defence, and summed
ap to the Joey is • handsome style for Capt. Cartwright.
Mr. Rose addressed the Jury on the part of the plaintiff.
Mr. Justice Seawron. who presided at the trial, then
groceeded to recapitulate the testimony, and charge the
Jury open the law of the case. The questions to be
settled by this Jory, his honour remarked, were first,
whether the chastisemeot which the Captain inflicted
was mmecessarily severe and disproportionate to the of-
fence That the Captain of a vessel had a right to in-
flict ehartirentent on one of hie crew, when the conduct
and due monagement of the vessel rendered it necessary,
was not to be questioned, and it would appear that in
the present ease the conduct of the steward was repre-
hensible and justified some chastisement. It was in
evidence that the steward of a vessel should understand,
and when called upon by tbe Captain is case of neces-
sity, such as sickness and the like, perform the duties of
- the cook, and so, sent to bias, in case of necessity, one
of the crew, or the crew in rotation. The Steward bare
had certainly sot dale his duty, and the captain as he
bid a right to do, tied him up by the thumbs to punish
him. ifhowever, the punishment was excessive, the
jdry must And a verdict against the Captain. It bad
also been proved that the Captain on a certain occasion
bad kicked the plaintiff after he bad ordered him, and
while the was going down, the companion way;—
but it appeared, moreover, that u he was 'going
down, the plaintiff loitered sad stalked back to
the esptain. On this latter point, it might be
doubtful whether the plaistiff shottbl not recover, as
kicking, if they believed the witness, did sot appear to
to ha necessary ; but the Jury mast decide according to
their own view of the case. The Jury retired about
twenty minutes, and returned with • verdict. Not Guilty.
Another cease then came as of the same plaintiff
against Thomas Roland, the mate, also fur assault and
battery, sad Involved still nicer points of law. Layc
la dile case, alledged that the defendant bad is several
legumes during the voyage violently beaten him.—
There was no testimony that Roland the mate, bad
struck him, or kicked him I. three several inst I
sod bad there been no contradictory testimony, or bad
the jury placed the fullest reliance on the plaintiff's
witnesses, a verdict for a considerable amount might
have been found for the plaintiff. That he had been
struck by the mate. there was no question; and the
print of law raised, was, whether the mate under the
circumstances had a right to chastise him.
Mr. Ross for the plaintiff, contended strenuously,
that the mate had sever a right In say circumstances
whatever. to strike a hand at all ; but must in all cases
of his misconduct report him to the captain who might
chastise hint, if the circumstances of the case demand-
ed punishment.

Mr. Sumo, on the other hand, contended (and the
Court charged the Jury accordingly,) that there cm-
telaly were ciressestauces le which the mate was jus-
tified is striking a had, to enforce obedience. For
instance, when the serail; was sick, or oo shore, and
it was uecessary for the mate to compel some duty to
be done immediately. In such cases it would be jos-
rift/able. So, even if the captain were on board, sad
the mate saperietending on deck, aid some necessary
duty on which the salvation of the ship depended,
was to be does instantly. There the mete would have
a right to compel kismet obedience by blows. Gene-
sally..however, his hosoor remarked, when the mate
might have time without danger to the vessel, to re-
port the delinqueot or disebedisot man to the captain,
that he might deal with him, be would sot be justified
in inflicting puoishomit himself. The Jury, after
about on hour's absence, came In with a verdict of
six rents. damages for the plaintiff, and coats.
The details of the testimony in the foregoisg eases
are not particularly Ogee. A due understanding of
the points of law involved, is all that is considered of
essential importance. Many have been of orioles,
that a master of a merchant vessel lass no right in
soy case to flog a hand on beard ; sod that the mate
certainly never could exercise each authority. The
law oa those points, however, will be found correctly
given as above; and when it la added, that the able
Counsel fur the plaintiff, himself, conceded that inch
was the law, and did not fora moment attempt to
contest it, so far at knit regards the iaptaio of a ves-
sel, the public may look upon the °pieties, of the
Court, in the two cases as above expressed, as speak-
lag the law of the laud with entire corrects's,.

LA#V INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, M 29.

nil LINO V. 11 AND
This WAS AO indictment against dm defendants for a
emispiraey to gi►e a man false credit ; hat as the ease
west or upon a Foist of form. •we forbear entering
into the details.
The Jury. larder the. Learned JaJge's direction,.
found the defendants Not Guilty.
TON LINO P. THATCOrIt.
This was at taslictsnent against a Vestry-man of the