UNITED STATES v. BEYER. 37
orders, if not unlawful, must be obeyed; and that submission to these
orders is among the first duties of the seamen. It`is 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 chastisenient upon seamen, where there is disobe-
dience 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 oflicer, and a repetition
of the assault is made, the seaman may lawfully resist in such a manner i
as to protect himself from injury; and if the assault upon the seaman is
made witha deadly weapon, or other dangerous weapon, he is entitled to A
use equivalent and necessary force in his own protection; he is not de-
barred 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
bodilyharm. Because he is a seaman he does not on that account cease
to be a man, withthe 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 tr the
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 hewas in danger of serious bodily injury;-—-he had the right 1
then to use just such force as was necessary to repel that injury and to
protect himself.
It is for the ·jury to say whether the use of such a weapon as he did
use would be justifiable. That you will determine, gentlemen, from
the facts in 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 assault—unless he felt, and
was justified in feeling, from the evidence of his surroundings, from the
characterof 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 necessa.ry 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 mate,
after working hours were over, and after the first assault upon the