Healy v. Cox

D. South Carolina

Healy v. Cox

45 F. 119, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222

DecidedJanuary 16, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 45 F. 119 (Healy v. Cox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Healy v. Cox, 45 F. 119, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222 (D.S.C. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Simonton, J.

Libelant was a seaman on this bark. He sues the master for striking him on the head with a broomstick, breaking it. It seems that some stolen ship stores had been found in Healy’s bunk. Investigation showed that they had been taken by another boy on board. These two boys and TIellor were suspected. The master was ashore. On his return, the mate reported the matter to him, and he punished all three of the boys. This libelant was hit on the head with a broomstick, and for lour or five days had a stiff neck in consequence of it. A broomstick is not an unusual means of punishment, nor was the punishment cruel, or unusually harsh, and I am not quite sure that it was unnecessary. Interference by the court in a case of this kind by way of damages would lead to unfortunate consequences. Let respondent pay tho costs, and then dismiss the libel.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Simonton, J.

Libelant was a seaman on this bark. He sues the master for striking him on the head with a broomstick, breaking it. It seems that some stolen ship stores had been found in Healy’s bunk. Investigation showed that they had been taken by another boy on board. These two boys and TIellor were suspected. The master was ashore. On his return, the mate reported the matter to him, and he punished all three of the boys. This libelant was hit on the head with a broomstick, and for lour or five days had a stiff neck in consequence of it. A broomstick is not an unusual means of punishment, nor was the punishment cruel, or unusually harsh, and I am not quite sure that it was unnecessary. Interference by the court in a case of this kind by way of damages would lead to unfortunate consequences. Let respondent pay tho costs, and then dismiss the libel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 F. 119, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/healy-v-cox-scd-1891.