Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/580

 MOBBAY V. WHITE. 565 Upon a revision of all the testimony, the court finds the occurrence to have beau substantially as follows : While the libellant was at work cleaning paint, the master, in a proper manner, directed him to do his work better, to whi'ih the seaman made an impertinent reply. Thereupon the mate, without any appeal from the mas- ter, came up, told the man to stop talking, and do his work as the captain told him. Instead of complying with this direction, he was insolent to the mate, who thereupon slapped him on the side of his face with his open hand. The libellant then drew his sheath knife, of the usual size, stepping towards the mate, w^io rau for a belaying-pin, followed by Murray. Each procured a pin, Murray still holding his knife in his hand. The mate then ran into the cabin with the pin to obtain his revolver. He soon after came on deck, with his pistol partly raised and in plain sight, but without any club or pin. After Murray had procured the belaying-pin he was, in the presence of the mate, ordered by the master to put the pin back in its place and return to his work, which he did beforethe mate went into the cabin. When the mate came from the cabin he went near to the master and up to Murray, who was then quietly at work as ordered, and, with the pistol raised and presented at Murray, inquired of him if he intended to eut him with his knife, which was then in its sheath. Thereupon Murray drew the knife from its sheath, and at the same time the mate flred and wounded, the libellant. Will the law sanction the action of the mate ? In the opinion of the court it will not. The libellant's insolent reply to the civil com- mand of the master would have clearly authorized the master to have inflicted reasonable punishment, either by his own hands or by the mate, if the master thought proper so to direct ; but no such direc- tion was given, and the mate, without authority from the master, interfered and repeated the master' s orders to Murray, who again repeated his insolence; thereupon the mate struck Murray with his open hand in the face. In all probability the blow was of but slight moment, but, as the master was then present, within the rule of law the mate was not authorized to punish the seaman, although he had been insolent and disobedient. There was no immediate exigency of the service which called for such exercise of authority by the mate ; and, although Murray deserved punishment for his misconduct, it should have been imposed by direction of the master, who wa^ the proper judge as to the occasion and severity of the punishment, as the mis- conduct of the seaman had occurred in the presence of the master. After the blow on the face Murray drew his knife on the mate, stepping forward towards him, who was wholly without means of protection. This aot of Murray was an offence of the gravest nature, although in the opinion of the court it was not Murray's design to