FRIDAY -- Before the Chief Justice.
John William Trigg was indicted for the wilful murder of Thomas Flynn, by
shooting him on board the Sesostris, at sea, on the 12th of August.
The prisoner was chief officer of the ship Sesostris, and the deceased was a
seaman belonging to the same vessel. Flynn, from the evidence, appeared to have
been a quiet inoffensive man when sober, but when drunk was a most desperate
vagabond, and being a very powerful man was the terror of the whole ship. The
crew was in a very mutinous, disorderly state, and there was a great deal of
drunkenness; indeed, to such a pitch did they carry their audacity, that they
stole a whole cask of beer from the quarter-deck where it was lashed, and drank
it in the forecastle. About three weeks before the occurrence referred to took
place, Flynn was handcuffed by the officers of the ship, when the irons were
forcibly taken off by the crew, and thrown overboard, and one of the seamen
threatened to chop off the chief officer’s hands for endeavouring to interfere.
The deceased had on more than one occasion threatened the life both of the
captain and mate. On the night in question Flynn went aft and upon being asked
what he wanted, said, the doctor; the doctor was called but did not come
immediately; and the chief officer put his hand on Flynn’s shoulder and directed
him to go forward: he did not go, and Trigg again requested him to do so, when
Flynn struck him and closed with him; it was a very dark night, raining and
blowing fresh, and Trigg and Flynn slipped towards the bulwarks; Flynn then
repeated the blow, and Mr. Nichol, a passenger who had just come on deck, walked
over towards them with the intention of assisting Mr. Trigg, but just as he put
his arm round Flynn Mr. Trigg fired a bullet through his head. The captain and
some of the passengers who were in the cabin immediately came out, and Flynn was
taken down below and died a few hours afterwards.
Mr. Hustler addressed the jury at considerable length for the defence,
contending that it was evident that Mr. Trigg did not in the darkness of the
night and the confusion of the moment see Mr. Nichol come to his assistance, but
that having retreated across the deck until he could get no further he was
afraid Flynn would murder him, and was justified in firing at him; in
consequence of the state of the crew the officers had been directed by the
captain to carry pistols.
A great number of witnesses were called for the defence, who proved that Flynn
was one of the most powerful men that ever was seen, and a perfect demon; that
on the night in question he had, with the most horrible language, threatened to
have Mr. Trigg’s life; that he had intended to break into the main hold that
night but was prevented by the hatches having been battened down. The account of
the affray given by these witnesses varied very much, some stating that there
were twenty blows, other that there were only three or four, but three witnesses
for the defence swore positively that before the shot was fired, they heard a
gurgling kind of noise as if Mr. Trigg was being strangled. All the witnesses
concurred in calling the prisoner a humane kind man.
The Attorney-General replied upon the whole case.
The Chief Justice commenced his summing up by paying some compliments to Mr.
Hustler for the earnestness and zeal he had displayed in conducting his client’s
case. By law, he said, if one person is proved to have killed another the
burthen of shewing that he did it under such circumstances as not to amount to
murder is cast upon the prisoner. If the prisoner is able to rebut the idea of
malice by proving that the death wound was inflicted when his blood was heated
in consequence of his having been assaulted, the crime is reduced to
manslaughter; no words, however provoking they may be, will reduce murder to
manslaughter. Be it that the unfortunate deceased was one of the most worthless
vagabonds in existence, still the law holds his life as sacred as that of the
highest person in the community: his blood must not be shed, He thought that
under the circumstances he was justified in withdrawing their consideration from
the case of murder, and leaving it to them to say was the prisoner guilty of
manslaughter; and then the true point for their consideration was, had the
prisoner, at the moment he fired the shot, fair grounds for thinking that his
life was in danger? had he no means of escape? could he not call for and procure
assistance? Nothing but the utmost necessity could justify shedding of blood;
and if the jury did not think that necessity existed, they must find him guilty
of manslaughter. The jury retired about a quarter of an hour, and returned a
verdict of Guilty of manslaughter, with a strong recommendation to mercy. Remanded.
At the opening of the Court, the Attorney General prayed
judgment upon John William Trigg, convicted of manslaughter.
The prisoner having been placed at the bar, the Chief Justice addressing him,
said, the Jury having negatived the defence set up on your trial, namely, that
you were justified in taking the life of the deceased, in order to preserve your
own, and having found you guilty of manslaughter, the Court is called upon now
to award such sentence as the interests of justice demand.
In the administration of the law, Courts of justice know no distinction of persons,
and however lamentable it may be to see a person in you station of life in so
ignominious a position, the judges must discharge their duties with impartiality.
It is not to be denied that those who have the charge of ships, employed in the merchant
service, have a difficult and anxious duty to perform, when encountering the
perils of a long and tedious voyage. Not merely the safety of the property
confided to their charge, but the lives of all on board are in their hands. In
proportion, however, to the responsibility thus undertaken, does it behove the
interests of all concerned, that the trust reposed should be committed to
persons possessed of imperturbable temper, cautious discretion, and sound
judgment. Great allowances are doubtless to be made, when such persons are
brought in contact with so much diversity of temper, habits, and dispositions,
as are found amongst their crew, but especially amongst their passengers, who,
unaccustomed to the restraints of a floating prison, are ill reconciled to the
privations necessarily incident to a sea voyage.
Perfect discipline and entire harmony are scarcely to be expected, and perhaps
it would be unreasonable to scan with much severity on shore, many of the
irregularities and outbreaks of temper which too often have vent in the course
of a tempestuous voyage of sixteen thousand miles. Happily, these are in general
allayed before the voyage terminates. Seldom indeed have they produced so grievous
a result as this case presents. The records of this Court exhibit few instances of
inquiries of this nature arising from like causes, and it is to be hoped that they
will not become more frequent. This case is certainly not marked by any cold-blooded
spirit of tyranny, for if it had, it is probable that a different verdict would have
been found. It is the case, however, of an officer of a ship on duty, previously
armed, in contemplation of possible mischief, resenting in his own sober senses
to the death, the assault of a drunken unarmed seaman, under circumstances which
did not call for the use of a deadly weapon, and with the means at hand of
avoiding such extremities.
The verdict of the Jury has established this proposition. It may be taken, that
the deceased was, when in liquor, a violent man of indomitable temper. This was
his character throughout the voyage, although when sober, he was represented to
be a quiet and able seaman; and yet with perfect knowledge of his habits, he
appears to have been allowed to have his own sway without any attempt, except in
one instance, to put him under restraint. No sensible reason for this forbearance
was offered at the trial, and it appeared that the captain suffered one of his
passengers to arm you the night before this transaction, with the deadly weapon in
question, for the purpose of resisting any aggression on the part of the unfortunate
man now no more. The
testimony of the second mate went to shew, that he also was prepared to resort,
by orders of his Captain, to the same extremity under the like circumstances.
It is to be hoped that the spirit thus manifested is not common amongst gentlemen
who are placed in authority over their fellow creatures. Indeed, I persuade
myself that it is not common. Should it be, it is proper to intimate to men
armed with brief authority, that it is not every act of misconduct in a violent
drunken man, which will justify him in depriving him of life. As a warning to
those who may entertain so unbecoming an opinion of their vocation, they should
be informed that it is possible they may put themselves in such a position as to
call for the last extremity of the law in cases of capital felony. While proper
authority, for the purposes of salutary control, is placed in the hands of
persons in this situation, it does not imply an utter abandonment of sound
discretion and recklessness of human life.
Fitness to command imparts the
possession of self-control, knowledge of human nature, and freedom from headlong
passion. The worst feature in the present case, was, the unusual course taken to
arm yourself previously, without any adequate cause proved in evidence. There
had been no disturbance in the ship, from which any just cause of danger need
have been apprehended, and what had been suspected, might have been removed by
the cautionary vigour of the captain, aided by his officers, and the well
affected part of the crew, who, with the numerous male passengers on board,
could easily have put down any mutinous spirit in individuals.
Notwithstanding
the various and contradictory accounts of the different witnesses to this
transaction, it is clear that this unfortunate man might have been reduced to
obedient control, or at least personal restraint, before he proceeded to the
violence which induced his death. Means were at hand to put him in confinement,
and compel him to obey the lawful commands of his superior. Unhappily, with full
knowledge of his temper, he, a rough seaman, was allowed to give himself up to
that recklessness with which intoxication characterises the drunkard, and in the
conflict, you, being previously armed, terminated his existence.
Looking upon
this as a sudden abandonment of self control, under great provocation - that,
being unfortunately possessed of a deadly weapon, you were in an unguarded
moment betrayed into the use of it - the Court is disposed to take the most
mitigating view of your conduct. The high character you have received from all
the witnesses avails you greatly in this stage of the proceedings, when the
Court is called upon to exercise a discretion, at all times embarrassing, in
awarding punishment. To a man possessing such a character, your present
degrading position must form no inconsiderable portion of suffering, which is, I
trust, not a little aggravated by that sense of remorse which a generous mind
will assuredly feel in reflecting that by his hand he has ushered a fellow
creature into eternity, with all his sins upon his head.
The Court is unwilling by its sentence to blast all your future prospects in
life, but it is their bounden duty, for the sake of example, to award such a
judgment as shall have a salutary effect in awakening those in authority to a
just sense of their responsibility, and that they are not freely to practise upon the
lives of
their fellow creatures. I have had the advantage of a conference with his Honour
Mr. Justice Willis on all the circumstances of your case. We have taken into
consideration the high character you have hitherto borne, and we have not been
unmindful of the opinion expressed by the jury on the conduct of the captain
under whose orders you served; and we think upon the whole that the interests of
public justice do not demand a greater punishment than a fine, in the hope that
the result of this case will have a salutary effect upon your future conduct.
The sentence of this Court is, that you do pay to Her Majesty a fine of £50, and
that you be imprisoned until that fine is paid.