The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1845-04-03
Supreme Court.

VANCE lI-Case u sdke0gnder ALltu AGeke1Gte-Au
eton was brought BY Wilson, Che man with The lssg
Ahifs) against COMMANDER Maskenzs In assault and
battery a.d false imprisonment on board the u brig
soneIs; wilson being one of the persons charged BY
Com Mackenzie with mutinous design or attempt, Of
wnicn aiashPn.n Spencer was the alleged rngls:der
wilson esnsd the charge and for the purpose ct vinA
sang AIS character and obtaining damages for what he
ss.nsa illegal and Oppressive treatment Coz.
a civiitrbunal.
Commander Mackenzie pleaded in abatement to the iu
sdetion OF the Court, insisting thai this being matter
~ the course OF the discipline OF the Navy OF the u o.
Of ss
TINS plea Wilson, by bis counsel, John 3. Ssolss,
The ssss was submitted !. the Supreme Court upon
written argumsnts1r. scoles appearing as counsel for
the plaintiff and Mr. Duer and Mr. Lord for the defend
sGsers OF the Navy amensbls civil tribunals
for asts committed on board ofsU. s. vessel on the high
and that insisted that these were Jus.
fed the law the land and the rules and regulations
the navy the officer accused must appear and plead
bsiors which the suit was brought to decide whether
such Justification was made out not. He could not
shield his conduct from investigation by setting up
the Civil Court % claimed by oesrs .ishsr d the
thing but what he was justified IN doing. Officer in
the navy, and Commander Of the U 9. brig Somsrs.
buthst he bound prove this and prove Il in the
supreme Court OF This State. where the suit brought
enzie that the matter was one exclusivsy
within the jurisdiction Of Court Martial that our Civil
Courts had no right TO interfere with il, or to call upon
naval officers thus to be made snswerabe TO the ci
vi tribunals for acts done by them in their public cspaoi
discipline OF the navy. At the late term, the
opinion Of the supreme Court was pronounced by
ton in the case, is whsther or not courts Of com
m IN law have any jurisdieon over personal wrongs.
committed by superior ofcsr Of the navy upon sueor-
1t insisted that whether there be any other tribunals
knswn to the laws Of the land TO which resort may be had
jurisdiction Of these That the wrong question
has been committed abroad in foreign country upon
seption to the jurisdiction undenisble: actions for
sjuriss both to persons and property under like cir
an tbs s' ob.csiss no ssys1 Il hi.
day would think Of making the objection, lnor
s 81 sutton s';" e sss s IL S' winch
action for malicious prosecution before
Court Martial upon charges Of misconduct in the
taken by Lords Msns6eld and Longhborough for
sing the judgment Of the C. Baron, in the Exchequsr
lie against the commander. They admitted the ques
ton to be of doubts and did profess put the
adopted their reasons or in Affirming the Judgment
unable to determine from the report Of the
Bro z, 9. ioo % ed see also r R 7ss2 But in the
7D Lawrence observed, that he had heard from good
private information, that the reasons assigned BY Lord
saofeld for the Judgment were not adopted BY
Justices was affirmed. But whether they vera
on Before t Us is conosnsd Tia. was an ' action
o. the case for malicious prosecution; this an &C.
spnment The Chief Justices expressly concede the liza
hity Of the defendant in this form Of action, ( b4l)
This action has been brought and sustained in numerous
instances in the Common Law courts OF England sgGnst
both naval and military commanders by their suEvrdi
nates acts done both at home ard abroad under pre-
tence and color and while in the protested exercise Of
naval and military discipline. Some Of them will be
found reerred to in the Of Sutton vs. tombstone ses
vs. vs. FsSrsa sSs is Warden vs.
S na nsny Tb 20 y me q
sf vs. Hunn q mos: Ths WAS s: :.
action Of false imprisonment brought by the master OF
m anofwar against his captain. C. j. Abbot submitted
the question 10 the jury whether The plaintiff had been
guilty OF sobedience, justify the conduct Of the
defendant Under his charge a verdict was rendered in
ayor Of the plaintiff There many cases also In the
where the action has been sustained sgsns
GERS Of courts martial naval and military. who have ex
and severe vordics awarded against them they are col
a3ted ia and Macarthur on Courts Martial appendix.
Sc also Taunt r. TO- IS and cases In the o. Lieut.
cnurt martial II appeared that he sentenced the plain
M to fifteen years imprisonment, when the only charge
was his requiring q warrant in writing "a ordsr to
Justify him in taking another officer into HIS custody nm
der arrest-whch was considered no offence At all.
,rable for collision between the civil and military
courts and for the 6rmness and triumph the fornsr
In the OF the trial of the the learned Judge
having remarked the plaintiff liberty 10 bring
his action against any oil the members OF the court mar
OCeedod against
tain Rentone who arrested by writ from the c. D.
ct the breaking court martial where the formcr
presided and the latter sat as member This va. much
resented by the court martial who passed resolutions On
subject rejecting in incorporate language the
chief Justice Of the court (Sir John Wes) These were
wsicS the Chief Justice caused every me.Ser eour
taken custody for contempt, and was proceed
ia in legal way and maintain the authority Of
his Office when stop was put to the proceeding By
public written submission signed by all the members Of
the transmitted to the Chief Justice received and
int haC n in he
and inserted in the Gazete Of Nov. 18th, l746" me-
moria the Chief Justice observed, to the present
position to the laws, think themselves above the
law, will, In the end, find themselves mistaken"
ant is citizen Of foreign (meanng that of
the United s,ates and that the courts Of this State a.
matter of comfy should decline to take !ur'ssioon Of
VS.. Thomas IA, J. ls4) A similar objection
was taken in the. case of Percvai W hickey,
which was a marine trespass committed BY the COM
mander of a British slocp-ofwar, but was over
ruled. Spencer j. remarkng that the court was not
liberty assume decline Jurisdiction upon specuis
tive grounds public policy There the
defendant confesedly the subject of foreign 60
vernment We do not however, admit that the defsn-
ant here although in the service Of the United States 10
to be regarded citizen OF foreign government IN the
of the rule of law az stated in Gan vs. Thomas;
or are citizens the vice of it to be regarded az
aliens in this state The citizens Of the u g. government
made up the citizens in the aggregate OF the several
state is ipso faofo citizen Of the United States So,
citizen OF the United States becomes citizen OF state,
for augh that appears beth the parties in this case ara
citizens Of the State OF New York and as such are entf
led to sue in its courts Every person born within the
geance Of the king natural born subject and entitled
70 in the kings courts &C., Lit l2s) and whether
czens Of this State the United States, 10 Of
here they stand upon the same fseting in this
respect undsr the Constitution Of the United States
(Art 4, D. and r. as2l We are ofopinien, there
fore that the plaintiff entitled TO judgment Comman
MsKen.e therefore, must answer 70 the complaint OF
Wilson.
THE INDIAN FieHT.-lt appears from statements
in the Cherokee advocate, that the accounts of diff
the Usage Pawnee tribes which have reached us
through Arkansas papers, are almost wholly without
foundation. There 10 says that paper not even
'the ~ mptom Of sign OF No Pawnees or Osages
have faenno battle has been fsughtno Creek village
surprised and it, three hundred inhabitants massacred
The military who had taken the field hearing these re-
ports have returned to their homes and the Creeks ana
Osagss are still friends