The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1869-09-08
Master British ship Matte Bank.
[BrroRr wIDrn.ss. J.. IN cnAxBrRs,I

TAoRGs HG=ifn rs. Rersry NeDoRald.
This was libel in admiralty, claiming
2,5o0 damages from the Respondent, for al
assault and battery committed on the Com
plainant in Honolulu harbor. The particu
lars and extent of the damage done will ap
pear by the judges decision, which is sub
Joined. W. C. Jones, Esq, appearing fol
the Libellant, and R. H. Stanley, Esq, fol-
Respondent.
| A plea 10 the Jurisdiction, which appears
to be a stock plea on all such occasions, was
duly flied By the Respondents Counsel, on
the S0th Of August, setting forth the provi
sions of the French Treaty, etc, and that the
American Consul only, by force of the said
I Treaty, had jurisdiction in such cases.
Mr.. Jones asked for time TO prepare his
argument on the point raised by the plea,
and was granted till next day at IL o'clock.
/ On the coming in of the Court the next
day, Mr.. Jones objected to the Court enter
tanning the plea of the Respondent, on the
ground set forth in his plea, which was in
writiug-the gist of which was, that the
/ American Consul had the sole right TO pro-
test in all matters contemplated in the Treaty,
that the Consul was the only person who had
the right to protest; and that this Court
ought not TO hear the plea to jurisdiction,
because the Supreme Court has repeatedly
decided the question of Jurisdiction in SINH
lar cases. Mr.. Stanley then addressed the
Court in answer.
Mr.. Jones added some words to his preyi-
Gus remarks, in reply to what Mr.. Stanley
had said
The Court:
With regard to the plea of the Respondent
in this cause, l have to say that regard all
the points made therein as essentially ruled
upon in the cases of NJ. Enos VS.. n. W.
soule, H. Reports, vol. ., ?. $50 TO $40, and
F. A Warren ct ais vs.. Bark BsIyansin Rush,
ibid Al, in both of which cases, the opinion
of the Supreme Court as to the extent to
which the 2lst Article of the French Treaty,
limits the jurisdiction of our Courts is very
clearly set forth; in both these cases and in
the case of Young vs.. Phillips, ibid $40, the
duty Of our Courts sitting as Courts of Ad-
miralty is ably laid down.
The plea is overruled, let the cause proceed.
II during TIE progress anything should be
disclosed to alter the opinion of the Court
as to jurisdiction in this cause the suit will
be dismissed.
Mr.. Stanley: have not been heard on this
plea and object to the ruling of the Court,
without being heard
The Court thought that he had finished his
argument but if he wished to be heard
further, the Court would hear him.
Mr. Stanley said that he would not argue
the point, inasmuch as the Court had already
overruled and had stated that they would
entertain the Jurisdiction as in the case of
Enos VS.. Sowle; and he did not see how he
would enlighten the Court on the general
maritime jurisdiction independent of Treaty
stipulations.
the Court then repeated the ruling already
made, and Mr. Stanley noted exceptions
thereon.
The parties then proceeded to offer the
testimony on each side,-and the Court gave
judgment on Saturday, as follows;
WIDDEMAN, J.
This is libel by seaman against the first
officer Of the American ship Lorsnzo. for al
legged personal wrong and violence. have
duly considered all the evidence presented, as
well as the law cited.
1t appears to my mind established, beyond
doubt. that Libelant repaired on board the said
ship Lorenzo, on the 18th day of May last, in
state of intoxieation, so much so that any
person, being reasonably calm, would have
observed the fact. aud would have considered
it useless to reason with him, or to try to get
him to work. think it is also established by
the evidence, that the Respondent did knock
down the Libellant, and after he was down.
stamped and kicked him in the face and other
parts Of the body. DR.. McKibbin testifes
that the laehrymal duet of Libellant's left eye
is stopped up. The probable cause of said
stoppage is the fracture Of the cheek bone.
He further testifes that Libellant must have
suffered considerable pain that the injury in
ficted viii cause him a great deal of ineon-
venience, and that, in all probability, an OPP
GRAFTON will be necessary to make new duct.
1t is insisted, on behalf of the Respondent,
that be il not responsible for the injury in
Hieted upon the Libellant, because it was done
under the exigency of the circumstanees-the
vessel just getting under way, and in danger
Of going on to the Teef-for no other purpose
than to produce prompt obedience
Considering the hustle and hurry incident
to the occasion, and the state Of intoxieation |
Of the libellant, the knocking dOsea might have |
passed Is an accident; but after that, Libel- ]
lant's helplessness should have been his pro-
lection, and l regard the kicking as unpro- |
FOked and inexeusable.
/ think that Libellant Is entitled to recover |
from the Respondent for the injuries suffered |
BY his act, and decree that Respondent pay |
10 the Libellant the sum Of two hundred and /
fifty dollars.
AsoTHER TAcHT-Nr. Thomas Thrum,
one of our veteran ship-carpenters. has just
yacht, which, in the opinion Of
ud0Hs q zo-,.+bs,r- ohaad ~ che o., IN /