36 mnmnu. nnrommz.
therefore limit your investigations to the truth of this single issue: -Was
the defendant guilty, as charged, of committing an assault with a dan-
gerous weapon, upon Smith, the mate of the bark Hazeltine? lt is not
disputed by the defendant that he did inflict the injury upon Smith,
about which the prosecution is had ,4 but he does dispute_ that it was an
assault within the meaning of the statute. 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 the Hrstmate, Clinton. The
party injured was the 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 Eghting; 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 him-
. self ran forward to prevent further cutting; and that the defendant cut
him without any excuse or reason to do so. lf thisstory is credible,
. you will be justified in finding the defendant guilty as charged. You
will, however, take into consideration all the evidence. You will con-
sider the testimony of Clinton, the first ofiicer. He speaks of a previous ‘
dimculty between the defendant and this mate, but does not speak as to
s 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’clo‘ck
on the day of the difhculty; that it was after working hours; that the
ship was at anchor; that the second mate cameforward 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
A with hisfist; that the Hrst 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 seri-
ous 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 of facts to be true,—and you will also con—
sider the testimony of the other witnesses offered for the defense, in weigh-
ing the evidence of this tra1isaction,—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