New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-06-28
Marine Court. FRIDAY. Ma, n

Marine Court. FRIDAY. Mayr
Before Judge CO.les
Henri AbrdhGm vs.. ". Il. SANFORD,
Cbisf EHgueer NJ SteaHshIp Brother JGtathan.-Th0
plaintiff was employed on the steamship Br0thaa
Jonathan 10 assist IN the Engineer department The
defendant is the Chief Engineer Of SAID vessel This
action was brought 20 recover for assault and bat
terry and false imprisonment during late voyage
from Chagres to New-IOrk. ltappeared on the part
of the antih that the Chief Engineer Knocked down
the plaintiff Al the door of the engine room ana afIef
v ard caused hun 10 be put IN IRONS where ne con-
tinued during the night. II was contended, on the
rsr- ofthe plslntif that the Chief Engineer had
authority under any circumstances, 20 innict punish
meut but that all such matters Of difference must De
Il Nas shOwn-aTst, That the Chief Engineer issued
an order 20 the plaintiff which he treated with inso-
lence and contempt second, That on being sum
moned before HIM be wasdscOVered 10 be lntoxcated
repeated his nsOence and upon being gently forced
from the room by the defendant he fell down third,
That IN consequence Of subsequent nsosnee and IN
ebnety that he placed IN irons for lev ho,ifs--
Other evidence IN regard u lnsOlence and soDriev
contradictory
Chef Engineer has any authority whatever 70 en-
force obedience TO orders N ms department ms
question believe, has been ludlclaly delermlne1-
In the case Of master and seaman the la" mas Deen
clearly settled that the relationship IS similar 20 INA.
Of parent and child, master ana appfcntiee' ana
the Law has In general, recognized similar reciprocal
nights penalties and oDbgatlons.
me snoI,cation Of steam 10 our merchant vessels
h1g a
stv and indeed propneiy, OF submitting all questions
Of disobedlence 70 the decision Of the master has
ceased Under the ancient system IN regard 10 SAIL
vessels the master is expert n every department
and the nght % enforce obedience Is very properly
conferred on hin. But N regard 70 steam vessels an
entirely new department has unavoidaDly grown up,
and the master Is not aecessarlly and very seldom ~
al engineer, and IS not supposed to be acquainted
with such duties.
The lives Of the passengers and safety OF the cargo
Is IN the hands VI the Engineer, and everything de-
pends upon bis skill and authority 70 enforce prompt
" obedience 70 his ORDERS. IL would therefore De an
surd to submit questions Of mlronduct or disooe-
dience 70 The Captain difference OF opinion, or
even short delay, might be DISASTROUS ana faial
The Court Is therefore o. opinion that from tue ne
eesslty Of the case the Engineer has, and ought 70
have al the usual powers and authority Of the mas
ter In enforcing the obedience OF those IN the Eng
neer department
Under The contradictory evidence in thus acton It
Il very difcult determine whether the defendant
excested his authority not. II the plaintiff was
intoxicated and guilty Of nsOience and disooedience,
even the punishment IN putting him IN irons was not
TOO seyera Whether the plaintiff was intoxicated or
rot wouYA scarcely justify the defendan, N knock
ing him Gown. In taking view Of all the evidence
am OF Opaion that the plaintiff entitled 10 recoves
only ncmiEsai damage~.-Fos plaintiff Messrs. Snoc
! ley and Keauety for defendant, Mr.. Don0hae.