(Oircuit Oourt, 8. D. Georgia, E. D. May, 1887.)
The United States courts have jurisdiction to try charges of crime committed on board any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United i::ltates, or any citizen thereof, at a.ny point on the high seas, or in any river, haven, creek, basin, or ba,Y within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United' States, and out of the jU1"lsdiction of any particular state. While. a master of a vessel has been held justified in inflicting moderate personal chastisement on a seaman for impertinent language and disobedience of orders, it would be far more decent to resort to other methods of punish· ment.
SHIPPING--AUTBORITY OF MASTER-PERSONAL CHASTISEMENT.
Where the master assaults a seaman, the seaman may endeavor to escape, and if pursued by the master and the assault is repeated, the seaman may resist in.such manner as to protect himself from injury, and if thea.ssault is made with a deadly weapon, or otherwise dangerously, the seaman is authorized to use equivalent and necessary force in his own protection· Where a master commits an assault upon a seaman, the seaman wOuld not be justified in repelling it with a dangerous weapon unless the facts were such as to justify the belief that he was in serious bodily danger.
Where a mate in command of a vessel lying at anchor,after working hours ordered a seaman to wash his (the mate's) clothes, and the seaman declined in terms, an assault upon the seaman was wholly unjuBtifiable. (ByllabU8 by tke Court.)
Du Pont Guerry, U. S. Atty., for plaintiff· ..4.. R. LawWn, Jr., for defendant.
Assault on the High Sea with a Dangerous Weapon.
SPEER, J., (charging jury.) The defendant, William Beyer, is charged with assaulting with a dangerous weapon one Smith upon the high seas. The assault is charged to have been committed upon an American vessel. The jurisdiction of this court extends to assaults of that character committed upon an American vessel at any point on the high seas, or in any arm ofthe sea, or in any river, haven, creek, basin, or bay within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, on board any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof. If you believe from the evidence that the assault was committed as charged, and that it was committed on an American vessel at the point designated by the witnesses who testified upon that subject, to-wit, nine miles from the shore in the roads of the river La Plata, this court would have jurisdiction to confer upon you the power to find your verdict upon the matters in issue in the indictment. I believe there is no dispute that the offense was committed, if committed at all, within the jurisdiction of the United States court, and therefore you need not inquire further into that question. You will
therefore limit your investigations to the truth of this single issue: ·Was the defendant guilty, as charged, of committing an assault with a dangerous weapon, upon Smith, the mate of the bark is nat disputed by the defendant that he didinfiict the injury upon Smith, about which the prosecution is had, but he does dispute that it was an assault within the meaning of the stllttute. He insists that it was done in his own self-defense, and that therefore it was justifiable, and that he cannot be properly convicted for it.. It appears that the master of the vessel at the time of the difficulty was on shore at Buenos Ayres; that the ship was lying out some eight miles from the shore inthe river Plata; and that it was under the command of thefirstmate., Clinton. The party injured wasthe second mate. There is but one witness offered on the part of the government who speaks as to the main occurrence, the stabbing, and that is the steward or cook, Crowley. He testifies that the mate and the defendant were fighting; that they were fighting a stand-up fight; that he saw defendant trying to get out his knife; saw him get out his knife and stab the mate and cut him; and that he himself ran forward to prevent further cutting; and that the defendant cut him withont any excuse or reason to do so. If this story is credible, you will be justified in finding the defendant guilty as charged. You will, however, take lni<> cbnsiderationall the evidence. You will consider the testimony of Clinton, the fiJ;st officer. He speaks of a previous difficulty between the defendant and this mate, but does not speak as to the facts of the stabbing. You will also consider the testimony of the defendant. He is permitted by the humanity of our laws to testify in his own behalf, and you can attach such importance to his testimony as you think it deserves. He tells you that he was forward after 7 o'clock on the day of the difficulty; that it was after working hours; that the ship was at anchor; that the second mate cameforwllrd and directed him to fill certain barrels with water, and he remarked, "That might have been done in working hours;" that the mate requested him to repeat that; when he did repeat it, and the mate struck him several times in the face with his fist; that the first mate was there and encouraged the second mate to strike him again; and that when this ended, the defendant states, he went and washed the blood from his face, and then was called aft for some duty as a seaman; that the mate then met him, and told him that he must wash his (the mate's) clothes at once; and that he said, "Excuse me, sir; that is no seaman's duty." Thereupon the mate fell upon him and began to beat him; that the steward or cook, Crowlev. came out to the assistance of the mate; and they both assaulted, and were beating and choking him. Feeling that he was about to suffer serious bodily injury, he drew his knife and lay about him with it with purpose to relieve himself from the attack which was being made upon him. If you believe that state offacts to be true,-and you will also consider the testimony ofthe other witnesses offered for the defense, in weighing the evidence of this transaction,-the conduct of Smith, the second mate, was altogether unjustifiable. It is true that the master or other officer in command of a vessel has absolute charge on board ship, and his
UNITED STATES 'V. BEYER.
orders, it not unlawful, must be obeyed; and that submission to these orderais among the first duties of the seamen. !tis also true that the deportment of the seamen toward the master should be respectful; and the master has been held justified in inflicting a moderate correction to the seamen for disobedience of orders, and for impertinent language and behavior.· Although it would be far more dignified and decent in a master or other officer in command of a vessel to refrain from attacking or inflicting personal chastisement upon seamen, where thf\re· is disobedience of orders, and no great emergency exists. When a master attempts to assault a seaman, even for disobedience of orders, unless it is a case of great emergency, the seaman may endeavor to escape, and if pursued by the master or other officer, and a repetition of the assault is made. the seaman may lawfully resist in such a manner as to protect himself from injury; and if the assault upon the seaman is inade -«ritha deadly weapon. or other dangerous weapon, he is entitled to use equivalent and necessary force in his own protection; he is not debarred of his right of self-defense. The same rule would apply if the assault should be made by an officer without a deadly weapon. if the assault were of a character which would subject the seaman to serious bodily harm. Because he is a seaman he does not on that account cease to be a man,with the rights and privileges of a man in his personal defense. If you believe in this case that the second mate seized this man by the throat and choked him until he became blind from the result 'ofthe choking; if you further believe from the evidence that the steward assisted in this; and that they were cruelly assaulting him in such a manner that he felt he was in danger of serious bodily injuryj-he had the right then to use just such force as was necessary to repel that injury and to protect himself. It is for the -jury to say "'hether the use of such a weapon as he did use would be justifiable. That you will determine, gentlemen, from the facts iii this case. The prisoner ought not to be justified in using a dangerous weapon like that which he admits to have used unless the circumstances were such 'as to justify him in believing that he was in danger Of serious bodily injury from the he felt, and was justified in feeling, from the evidence of his surroundings. from the character of the assault, from the fact that assault had been made upon him previously, from the further fact that two were making an assault upon him-that he was in serious bodily danger-then he would be justified in using all the force necessary to protect himself just precisely as he would be if the difficulty occurred on shore, and as if the relations of seaman and master did not exist between himself and his officer. You will also further take into consideration the fact that this vessel was lying at anchor; that there was no special emergency at that time for the obedience of any order which would justify a serious assault by the mate or other person on that vessel, upon the defendant. I charge you further,that if you believe from the evidence that the second mitte, after working hours were over, and after the first assault upon the
qefenq*,nt, 'and after 7 q'clock at night, ordered the defendant to wash his c!othEiIi, it was R. petty act of tyranny which the defendant was not obliged to obey; and if the mate assaulted him because the defendant refused to wash his clothes at that time, the defendant would be justified in that assault; but he would not be justified in using a deadly weapon unless, under the rule I have already given you, the assault was of that character as to satisfy him that he was in danger of serious bodily harm to himself. In weighing this evidence you will take into consideration all the facts likely to influence the testimony of the witnesses as defining and fixing the amount of credibility you should attach to the testimony of each. If you believe from the evidence that the steward, Crowley, has bad feeling against this defendant, you will attach to just such bad feeling, and the. prejudice which would naturally arise from it, such weight as you think it ought to have in estimating the credibilit)" of the testimony of Crowley·. You will also consider, in estimating the value of the testimony of the defendant himself, all the interest that he has in this case because he is the defendant. You should not allow the evidence of other assaults madeupon the defendant by the steward, Crowley, to influence your minds, except in so far as it would tend to throw light upon his motives, and to enable you to say; whether or not he was telling the truth of this transaction. If, on reviewing all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt, (which doubt should arise from the evidence or from the want of evidence. and should be such a doubt as a sensible man could give a good reason for,) either as to the truth of the testimony of the witness Crowley for the prosecution, or as to the comparative weight of evidence, or whether the defendant acted in self-defense,-you should give the defendant the benefit of that doubt, and acquit him. He comes before you with the presumption of innocence in his favor. That presumption has the weight of evidence that he is innocent unless it is removed by the evidence which has been offered on the part of the government. If you that the government's testimony shows that this was an assault made with a dangerous weapon, and not in the defendant's self-defense, or otherwise justifiable, it will be your duty to convict the defendant, and your verdict ill that case would be: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty." If you believe that the government fails to make out its case because of the want of credibility in the testimony of its witnesses, or if you believe that the defendant was justified in the assault, and that he made it in his own self-defense, it will be your duty to acquit the defendant; and if you have a reasonable doubt from the evidence as to what is your duty in the premises, it is your duty to acquit the defendant; and if you find the defendant is not guilty, you will say so by your verdict in these :words: "We, thejury, find the defendant not guilty." As you believe so you must find. The prisoner was acqUitted.
PHILLIPs 'lI. KOCHERT.
PHILLIPS '/I. KOCHERT
«(}ircuit Oourt, S. D. New York. May 17, 1887.)
PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS-PROOESS OF SWEATING AND CURING TOBAccoINFRIHGEMENT.
Suit was brought to restrain infringement of the first claim of letters patent No.fll,601, granted June 22,1869, to Leander Burdick and others for a process of sweating and curing tobacco. The proofs showed that other patents were previously granted to other persons for processes of similar character for renovating tobacco, and for coloring and curing tobacco stems.' In avoidance of these prior patents, the plaintiffs urged that the patent· in question pertained to the curing of green tobacco leaves, and not to renovating or resweatiJig after they had been cured, and was therefore different from tlie prior patents. The proofs further showed that defendants conducted a process for resweating instead of curing the material. Held, that the defendants did not infringe.
The first claim of letters patent No. 228,928, granted June 15, 1880, to one CharlesS. Phillips. for a tobacco sweat-house, consisting of a metal-linlldtray at the bottom. an interior wooden bottom, steam-pipes, an interior chamberhav. ing a slotted or slat floor, an inclined roof, and upright cleats on'the sides, is 80 far restricted by prior patents relating to the same subject that the heatIng of tobacco in boxes in a close room with the use of a slatted floor, without, however, a metal-lined floor,or cleats, does not constitute an infringement. The 'sole claim of letters patent No. 240,266, granted April 19, 1881, to Charles S. Phillips, for a process of curing and tobacco by heating it ina sweat·room, fails for want of novelty and invention to support it by reason of prior patents covering the same SUbject, and a suit for mfringement of the same cannot be maintained. ' '
BAME-PROCESS OF CURING AND COLORING TOBAcco-INVENTION.
In Equity· . Hubert A. Banning, for plaintift. Ernest O. ,Webb and Dougla88 Dyrenforth, for defendants.
WHEELER, J. This suit is brought upon the first claim of letters patent No. 91,601, dated June 22, 1869, granted to Leander Burdick, H. J. Chase, F. P. Isherwood, and W. S. Isherwood, for the process of sweating and curing tobacco, substantially as described in the specification; the first claim of No. 228,928, dated June 15,1880, granted to the orator for a tobacco sweat-house, consisting of a metal-lined tray at the bottom, an interior wooden bottom, steam-pipes, an interior chamber having a slotted or slat floor, an inclined roof, and upright cleats attached to its side walls, as in the specification' set forth,; and the sole claim of No. 240,266, dated April 19, 1881, and granted to the orator, for the process of curing and coloring tobacco, consisting in subdividing the tobacco, by packing it into wooden cases to be placed or tiered in a sweatroom, and heating it in a moist atmosphere of sufficient: density and heat to color the tobacco, substantially as set forth in the specification. The defendants set up lack of patentable invention,and want of novelty, and deny infringement. The process described in the specification of the patent first-mentioned "consists in subjecting tobacco to the action of artificial heat, ranging from 90 deg. to 110 deg. Fahrenheit, by enclos-