Case Name: Flemming against Ball
Court: South Carolina Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1784-01
Citations: 1 Bay 3
Docket Number: 
Parties: Flemming against Ball.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 3–6

Head Matter:
Flemming against Ball.
ship may give mode rato correction to marinéis, if they misbehave, or neglect, or refuse to do their duty. But if he heats them, cruelly, or males use of improper weapons, he is answerable in damages*
THIS was an action for an assault and battery. The cause came on to be tried before a special jury in Charles-Ion, at a special court, under the act of assembly, authorising such courts, before Judges Pendleton and Burke.
On the trial it appeared, that the plaintiff was a,seaman, and had shipped himself as such, on board the ship Britannia, commanded by the defendant. He signed articles in London on a voyage to this place, and from hence to return again to London. During tbe voyage he had conducted himself as an orderly and well disposed mariner. Shortly after the arrival of the ship here, while she was taking in her cargo, the plaintiff and others having laboured hard during the day in stowing away rice, went in the afternoon to the mate, and asked for grog. The mate answered, that he had none at his disposal, and referred them to* the captain; upon which the defendant and one Eastbury, went down into the cabin to make their application. Captain Ball, the commander of the ship, being busily engaged in writing, on perceiving them, got into a violent passion, and took up an iron poker then in the fire-grate, and beat them both severely; so much so, that the plaintiff, Flemmings was disabled for a considerable time afterwards. It appeared also in evidence, .that Eastbury, the other mariner, was in liquor, and behaved rather rudely, but Flemming was sober, and had behaved himself with civility.
Pinckney, for the defendant,
urged that subordination on board of a vessel, was essentially necessary; and unless seamen were kept in due and proper order, commerce could never be advantageously carried on. The safety of the ship, the lives of the passengers, and the protection of all on board, equally required it. That mariners were naturally a rough and turbulent set of men, and required curbing and restraint more than any other class in the community. It was for this reason that the marine laws have, time out of mind, permitted masters of vessels to correct unruly and disorderly sailors, and oblige them to da their duty. ‘ That the common law of the land liad adopted the marine laws, as part of the law of nations ; so that it was incorporated into the principles of our constitution: besides, the cabin of a ship is the sanctuary of the captain ; as much so, as a house is that of its owner:' and no person has a right to enter it without his permission, no more than a. stranger has, to enter into another man’s dwelling without leave of access being first given, (which probably gave rise to the common custom of knocking at the door of a dwelling-house, before entry.) If the plaintiff had wanted any thing from the captain, he ought, in decency, to have sent in a message by the steward of the ship, and not have rudely entered it himself. To support the power and authority of masters on board of their vessels, the counsel relied on Vin. Mr. tit. Mariners, 241. 12 Mocl. 434. 3 Bac. 566,'7.
Bay, for the plaintiff,
conceded that the general doctrine contended for by the defendant was good, and that a master on board of his ship may, if a sailor behaves rudely, or refuses to do his duty, give him moderate correction, which might well be compared to master and servant, tutor and scholar, and all other persons in superior and subordinate stations ; but this general power will not justify any cruelty or outrageous beating. And if a master of a ship, or other person, abuse this power and authority, then he is no longer justifiable, but becomes an aggressor, and is answerable in damages to the person injured. In the present case, however, it did not appear that the plaintiff had misbehaved, or refused or neglected to do his duty. He had been working hard during the day, and asked the mate civilly for grog, who referred him and others to the captain, in the cabin. The only offence, therefore, (if it can be called one,) was his going into the cabin, to speak to the captain, and then he behaved well, (though Eastbury, who was with him, did not.) If the captain had ordered him out, and he had refused ; or if he had been insolent, it might have justified captain Ball, in making use of moderate force, to compel him to leave it. But, on the contrary, it appears that he made use of a very improper weapon, and beat the plaintiff most unmercifully. That seamen were a highly useful set of men, well worthy of the protection of the laws of their country; and as, on the one hand, they were much in the power of their commander, so, on the other hand, thej' were well entitled to every possible security against ill usage.
An act of assembly, formerly of force in South-Carolina, allowed the judges to hold special courts in civil cases, in vacation time ; and to draw special juries and issue venires t See. in cases where transient persons were interested or concerned, for the speedy administration of justice, in which k was usual for as many of the judges to preside, a$ could conveniently attend ; hut that act has been repealed.

Opinion:
The Court
ruled, that the law authorises the master of a ship to give his mariners moderate correction if they mis behave, or neglect, or refuse to do their duty; and that he may justify in an action of assault and battery. But if he exceeds the bounds of moderation, and makes use of unreasonable or dangerous weapons, he then becomes respon» sible to the mariner, in damages. That although the cabin of a ship is peculiarly appropriated to the use of a commander, yet if a mariner enters peaceably into it, and upon a lawful errand, it will not justify an outrage upon him. Whether there was a peaceable entry, or whether the weapon used was a proper one or not, were matters for the Jury to consider, and they would govern themselves accordingly.
Verdict for plaintiff", Si. damages.