Court Of Common Pleas, Tu...
The Times, 1824-07-28T00:00:00

;(: coYQLOra VI,ef Jug1 :ST. and d . , - , .LtisS WaS ani action by,which'the rlmnt.f soughtorecoer cern- pensation in damages for an astaltt cOmmittr,t upon hird by the- defendant. The defendant pleaded the generl isuae. Mir. A-zDiREws opened the case. Air. Sergeant PLL rstated itto thejuaYr. 'The plainiitf-is a cap. tain in the army; the-defendant was, at the timie of the assault, the commander of thie ship the Sovecreflg,'ifi *Oicli veisel'the plain- tiff was coinng hom-ea 0assenger from thestlahtl of 3amalca. The circumstances outof whichi theactiow i absek piacoat sea. on the; passage homqe, on th&o4tb of June Thbletetayar.l1elnted sergeant then detaile(d the facts of thcaseaieiithey weeafterward.t given in evidence, lUr. James Tallon, examined by Mr.AR Ikfl iI. Johnson the plainiff. I knew him from his birtin. He 1rain the anmy. .Mr. Johnson and I were assengers from Jam*Ati' 1 board theWoverefigw. Captain Johnson took more thran ' ]spulaued uantity of provisions on board. We took n rtnm,' the captain of tme ship was to supply tbat. Captam;JTohnson its tearly 70years4of stge. Thedefenaant isa mucbvfoangerm,,nX,andstronger. I re- metmber the 4th of Junie last. AWe fere at supper in tne cabin of the Sovercign . After supper, CaptatA Johnson asked for a glass of] rumn and water. Captain Sisk asked the stteward, whether he (Johnson) had any rum in his cabin. The steward answered in the negative. Then the defenidant said he should not have any. I The plaintiff insisted that he should hare some, as it was bis 'ight. The derendant ordered the steward not to give him any. Plain. tiff said that su;h conduct was ' tyranxiical, and he would not submit to any such oppression. Defendant replied, that if plaintiff did not cease to use such language, he would orler him to his cabin. Plaintiffsaid he wall in his cabin, for'which he had paid dearly, and he (plaintiff) dared him to remove him. Defeidant answered this by sayinf that it was his house, and he would act in it as he pleased. Plaintiff replied, that defendant should give him satisfaction for this and his other ill-treatment wvhen lihecame on shore. Defendant answered, that if lie had him on shore, he would put him across his knee and whip his -. Upon this, plaintiff rather warmly said, "If you did, by . I would cut the big head offof you and you must be a d-d rascal to use suCh language to fiie." befendant thei said, he (plaintiff) desetved to be put in arrad.honLe _ that was the fittest place for him.-. Plaintiff answered this by saying " I bave more sense in this finger; than you have in your whole body *" and added, " You talked gf putting. t3e into. a strait-jacket, but take care that I do not put you into a wooden one first." Defendant now approached the plaintiff, anti strtck him a back-handed blow oh-the face, atnd follbwed this up by'two other blows, one over each eye, both of which cut him. very sevydy. HIe bled Yery copiously. Captain Jolnson suffered very mucom the effect of those blows. I went up to defendant, and tookI davay, and cried, "For shame, Captain Sisk wbat have you done ?'. Cross-examined by lir. Sergeant V1uolAw..A The plaintiff is a very stout old man. lie is betweefi 60 and 70 years old, but stout as any man alive for that age. There ha't been differences between tine plaintiff antlddefendaut before this. Witnesadidnot hear plain- tiff offer to fight the defendant acrossthe table. This was the plaintiffrs case. Mr. Sergeant VAUGHAN, for the defemlant, admitted that as no justification had been entered on the recordI a verdict must Tass against his client; but he contended that this was not a case which calledI for any thing more than nominal damages. It was clear that it was an angry altercation between the parties, in which the defend- ant, though he had given the plaintiffa blow, was in a great degree urged to it by the very irritating language, which no man filling the situation whlich the defendant had filled (he having held the rankof islaster in bis hMajesty's navy) could bear. He also commented on the circumstance of the plaintiff lhaving called only one witness, aud that man his particular friend, and not having caUed the other pas- senger. who saw the transaction. On the whole, he would leave the case entirely to the jury,tosaywsvhat compensation should be awarded for a blow given by a man above sixty to another who was only his senior by five years, and who had received such provocation as the defendajit hiad. The LORD CHIEF JUSTrcE summed up, and the jury, after consulting together for a few minutes, returned a verdict for the plaintiffL_Damages 1001. and costs. MMURT OF cJOMMQN 4FLEASi Th:Sn4 JULY 7. I - '' 101t5Zsk V. MS..AgAI 'r. -