Charles Michaelson against Abel Denison and others

September, 1808. Charles Michaelson against Abel Denison and others. The courts of the United States wit! not d/ iKif) m H vRSCj on the ground that one of the parties is lessheTs stated to be such in express terms. The master of right^during thu voyage to punish his marinera, by tisem'ent^'tVn" disobedience to any of his' reasonable foi^bsolenee^ and other of-mendment, when allowed. THIS was an action of assault and battery, ' After the declaration was fead, Livingston, 3. inquired on what ground the cause was brought before this . -or» court i Was it because the plaintiff was an alien / He was not so described in the declaration. The description was, “ Charles Michaelson, of Bass End, in the Island of St. Croix, a foreign subject, viz. a subject of the King of Sweden.” By the constitution of the United Atetes, the judicial power may extend to cases between citizens of a state and foreign subjects; but congress, in . . J the provision of the judiciary act under that clause, have restricted it to cases in which “ an alien is a party.” must be stated to be an alien in express tern^. 1 It is _ _ 1 . not sufficient that the description be such as to imply it. This court will take nothing by implication. Besides,’it js a non seqidtur that because a man is a subject of a foreign power, he is an alien: he may be at the same . time a naturalized citizen or this state. Stafiles, for the plajntiff, moved for leave to amend. Livingston, J. at first, said; he did not see how a court not Having jurisdiction could make any order in the cause. But upon its being stated, that an amendment had been allowed, at the last term, under similar circumstances, he remarked, that the court had not committed itself on the point; and, after a short consultation between the judges, the motion was granted, upon payment of costs. J On the trial it appeared, that Denison, one of the de-fondants, was the master of a vessel, and the plaintiff his mariner; and that the beating complained of consisted in the punishment inflicted by the former upon the latter, for disobedience of orders, insolent language, and personal violence. The plaintiff’s counsel contended, that the master has no right to inflict corporal punishment for insolent language; nor for disobedience to orders, not relating immediately to the management of the vessel; nor, indeed, for /last offences of any kind. Staples and Wales, for the plaintiff. .Jngf rsoil and Ji. Smith, for the defendants, [MAJORITY — Livingston, J.] Livingston, J. in summing up, after taking notice of the weapon, which was not dangerous, the mode of punishment, which was not unusual, and the degree, which, however severe, was less than sufficient to reduce the plaintiff to submission, recognised the right of the master, during tíre voyage, to correct a mariner for'disobedience to.any reasonable commands, and for- insolence, and other offences. The punishment, in its nature, is not limited to confinement, corporal chastisement being often necessary and proper; and, as to its extent, depends upon the circumstances of the case, the aggravation of the offence, or the continuance of the disobedience. This is a salutary authority, and ought to be maintained. Without it, it would be impossible to navigate our vessels. ^ Verdict for the defendants.