5G8 FEDERAL RBPOETEB. �Xt is argued with great zeal, by the learned counsel for the mate, Ihat lie had retreated from the sailor in presence of the crew; that his authority had been set at naught; and that to maintain proper discipline he was justified in what he did ; that he had no intent to wound the man prior to his drawing his knife ; that his design was, by exposTire of the pistol, to let all the crew understand that he was prepared to defend himself, and to maintain his authority; and that he expected Murray would thereupon disclaim any intent to use the knife, and would obey his orders. The testimony does net satisfy the court that such was the motive of the mate ; but if it were admitted that such was his object, in the manner he undertook to accomplish it he transcended his authority. He was without directions from the master so to act, and it was f or him alone to take the proper meas- ures for maintaining the discipline of his ship. It was not for the mate, after the seaman had returned to his duty, to approach him violently, in a threatening manner, with a loaded pistol presented, and demand of him as to his purposes for the future, unless directed Bo to do by the master. �Pointing at Murray the loaded pistol, thereby putting him in fear and alarm, was in law an assault. Regina v. St. George, 9 C. & P. 483. The mate was the aggressor in thus renewing the quarrel, and under the circumstances was not justified in shooting the libellant if he had first drawn his knife from the sheath. �The master answers that everything took place within so short a period of time that he had no opportunity to prevent the mate from making the assault. The master had witnessed the whole transac- tion; must have seen that the mate was in an excited condition, angry with Murray, when he rushed with the belaying-pin into the cabin. When he came from the cabin the pistol was in plain sight, seen by all the other witnesses, and the court bas no question that the captain was aware that the mate had procured it, and that he must have seen it in the mate's hands, as he passed near to tho mas- ter as he approached Murray. Seeing this deadly weapon presented at the sailor by the mate, which had been obtained by him imme- diately after the difl&culty with Murray, it was the imperative duty of the master to have interfered and ordered the mate to refrain from further violence. If such had been his conduct, there can be but lit- tle question that the mate would have obeyed the master'scommands and no further trouble would have occurred. Instead of so doing, he abstained from all interference, permitted the mate to rush at the seaman with the dangerous weapon levelled at him, and the master ��� �
