Bennett v. Sherman

3 F. Cas. 232, 3 Law Rep. 181

Opinion

DAVIS, District Judge.

If it were necessary for a satisfactory decision in this ease, to ascertain, precisely, in what particular, and in what manner, or degree the libellant was to blame, in the affray at dinner, in the forecastle, I should find it difficult to come to a conclusion. It altogether rests on the libellant’s declarations; none of the men, who were in the forecastle at said time, are produced as witnesses. My inference from all that appears in the case, is, that the impression under which Captain Sherman proceeded, when he commenced the punishment of Collins, was reasonable and discreet. Of the severity of that punishment, it would be out of place, in this case, to express an opinion. It is sufficient to say, that I conclude from the degree of that punishment, that Captain Sherman proceeded with a persuasion that Collins was the sole offender, and that Bennett should go unpunished. He was led to depart from that favorable consideration, in reference to Bennett, by the united declarations of the men who were called to witness the punishment. Influenced by these declarations, and, as there is reason to believe, purely influenced by considerations of prudent regard to the maintenance of peace and quietness among the ship’s crew, and the advancement of the interests entrusted to his care and direction, he inflicted punishment on the libellant not with severity, not exceeding eight blows, and with an instrument which has been exhibited, and the manner of using it described; and which I cannot pronounce an unlawful or improper one, for occasions requiring chastisement on board a ship at sea. It was said in the argument for the libellant, that Captain Sherman should not have so suddenly reversed his favorable determination, respecting Bennett, by those declarations made by the crew. His decision does not appear to have been made immediately on the general expression of the crew, that the libellant was in fault. He avers that he made deliberate and particular inquiry of the crew, individually, who witnessed the quarrel. This is corroborated by the mate’s testimony, who . mentions the names of four or five of the men, who declared that the libellant was to blame, in the affray. It was argued that the punishment should have been suspended until the facts of the case were more particularly and deliberately inquired into. I should doubt, whether any action in reference to the libellant’s culpability, would have been less severe, if founded on such examination. It is not probable that those men would have retracted the declaration which they had made, in the presence of the whole ship’s company, officers and crew. Captain Sherman’s prompt decision on the subject, his motives being just and laudable, should not, I think, under the circumstances of the case, be visited with a decree of damages. Besides the declaration of the crew, which it would have been imprudent and unsafe, entirely to disregard, he might very properly consider, that in such affrays, it is seldom that either of the parties is entirely free from fault, and that among a ship’s company, it is not an usual thing, or to be expected, that men should insist on corporal punishment of one of their number. Captain Sherman’s situation was perplexing, and if, in his decision, he made a mistake, it was not in anger, from ill will, or any unworthy disposition or motives in reference to the libellant. The punishment was slight in the number of blows, and as appears probable in the degree of force which was applied. A different course, considering the united representations of the crew, who witnessed the affray, and with disregard to their declarations, might have occasioned deep umbrage, and have been disastrous or injurious to the voyage.

The closing allegation, or expression of belief in the respondent’s answer, has no influence in the decision, and had better have been omitted. Seamen, when beaten or injured, or supposing themselves injured by an officer, frequently utter expressions of deep resentment, and threaten what they will do at home, when the voyage shall be finished. All this is of no use, and does not improve their condition. Bennett’s deportment and actions on the subject, after the usage of which he now complains, should not be interpreted to his disadvantage. As to the supposed instigation of a suit, suggested not to have been originally intended by the libellant, it is a common remark in such cases, sometimes suggested in argument, at the hearing, but seldom, if ever, included in the answer. The court might be misled, and engage in a useless inquiry, by entering into an examination of the truth of such suggestions. Extraneous influences, producing suits of this description, are often imagined, and sometimes doubtless, existing, may be the effect of generous sympathy, and, in the official organs, should be viewed, as a portion of decided duty in their profession.