Court Of King's Bench, We...
LA W REPO RT. wais s an action by a seaman on board the Kel.'ie Ceatlc Rast Iadiaman, against the mate of that vessel, 'er an assault and bat- tery; The defendant pleaded the general issue, and also that he moderately corrected the plaintifFfor misconduct and breach of dis. cipline. Mr. GuBtxEi (with whom was ;Mlr. E. LAWES) stated the case for the plaintiff, and reiinded the jury that though it was necessary that discipline should be preserved on b'oard our ships in variotis quarters of the w7orld, yet is was also highly important that the sea- -men, when punished without season or justice, should know that their wrongs would be redressed by a jury of their countrymen. IT, appeared froTm the evidence of geveral seamen who were on beard thc Ice We Ccatle, that while she was lying in the Canton siver on the 24th of December last, the plaintiff, who was captain's cook, fell by accident. overboard as lie was attempting to cleanse a part of the vessel. He was brought to the side of the ship in a boat, appa;ecnty much alarmed by the accidnt. when the defendant. accAsted him in angry tone and asked him whr he jumped overboard ? Ainsley replied, that he fell overboard ac- cideuteIty the mate replied, "1 It was a lie," and ordered him to the quarter deck. where, with an oath, he desired the boatswain " to give him a good starting." The boatswain accordingly took a ptect of gasket. whioned at one end, and beat him very- severcly, not rl onthe backlbui on the side of the head,and on otlier partS of the ooyl Wrhen the boatswain draisted, and the man escaped, Ladd directed the boatswain's mate to continue the punishment, which was done till he fell. Ladd then called up the two quarter-mate-rs to hold him up, and they did so tiil he slipped through their hands. The blood came through his shirt, which he had on dnrin.Z the pu- nishment, and merks of its severity appeared on his per.son. Several of the witnesses thought the punishment more severe than that of flogging as inflicted in the navy ; but one of them,,5M. Peter Sm ith, thought the matter doubtful. ? Mr. SCAsLLETT, for the defendant, admitted that a verdict must pass againrst his client, as it now appeared ihai the plaintiff harl f.allen accidentally into the river, and cone.cquently had committed no breach ofditcipline. It was quite c%2r, however. that the pu- nishment was inflicted,, as the action -saas defended, on the belief that the plaintiffhad jumped overboard to bathe, which had been trictly interdicted on boar,j the vessel. It was unfortunate that neither of the witnesse, wvho had sworn to-day that he fell into the ,r.s by accitent, conrsnunicated that circumstance tothe mate at the time, and thus removed his error. He trusted, that when the jury considaeed this natural mistake, and that the plaintiff had sustained no injurv which required r.edical aid, or a secession f-om his usual duties, they would think him fully compensated by very moderate damages. The LoID CluIEr JUSTICE left the cage entirely to the jurv, only requeating therm not to allow irritation of feeling to mingle in the consideration of their verdict. The jury found a verdict fer the plainliff, damages 801. -ni RPrtY ip 'BscAr. Thlis vas an action against Alr. Duncan, who was latelv the pro. orietor of the British Prcss, to recover a compensation in damages bir the breach of a contract, whereby he engaged to retain the plain. tiffas a reporter for a year. It anpeared, that in 1822 .Mr. Itliirphy was engaged for a short time f& the British Press, but, having no pernianenet engement, was dismissed or retired. Its condc"ctors were afterwyards desirons of obtaining his assistance which he consented to do oni having a sermanernt engagement. .lr. Duncan the proprietor, authorifed tr. Kellie, thn sub-editor, to treat wth bins; and, awcordingly that gentleman wrote a letter to Mlr. MJurphy in February, lgP, informing him that MIr. Duncan had given him an engagement on the raporting establishment of the paper for a year, at four guineas per week. Dr. Ilurphy commenced the performancc of his duties that evening in the Elouge of Commons. and continued to attend in the gallery till the close of the se-Aon. During this time PMr.Duncan repeatedly expressed his satisfactlon at Mr. Illurphy's exertions,and, in a letter to him ihi April, took occasion to thank him for the ability and correctness of his reports In Parliament. When the session edose, he was dismissed ; bat continued to apply at the office, ten- deing his services and demanding his salary. In December he Was again employed for four weeks,about the time of tde FHertford tsis, whichheattended,andwas then paid at thestipulated rate. Hlenow zought to recaver S41., being the remainder of lis sal..y for the year. Afr. Coosrt, for the defendant, argued that the agreement in- tended by the year the asioo of Parliament, at the end of which the labo=us of the reporte wrould be suspende(I ; and thatat all events lr. Mtiuphy was not edftled to his fuJi ealary, as he had, no doabt imp,oved his leisure tohis own pecuniary benefit. T?he IO D CRttr 3trsTroz expressed his decided opinion thas the agreement wsfor a whole year, and left the jury to niy hor ch Ithe plaintiffv was entitled to recover as a compeneation for the bap he btd bustained. The Jury found a verdict .'or die plaintifF for the whole snim d&imed, 841 COURT OF KING'S BH. WVEST 'v,vmn. .T-T-- ii AINSLEY V. LAnD.