There have already been several notices of the charge preferred by Captain Charles Smith, of the whaling barque Woodlark against nine of his seamen - Charles Faunce. Thomas Griffis (sic), Peter Hunter, George Risely, James (files, Henry Brown. Samuel Carroll, John Rutenburgh, and James Jones-the charge being attempting to make a revolt on the high seas. The case came on at first before J. Campbell, Esq., who dismissed it, in consequence of what appeared to him to be a fatal defect in the articles, namely, the recital of the old Merchant Seamen's Act in the articles, which were signed and executed is the month of May following the month of January last, when the new Act came into operation. Fresh informations were filed, and fresh summonses obtained, and the case came on again before Mr. Windeyer, who, however, declined proceeding in it, unless under as order from a superior Court, Mr. Campbell having, is a semi-official note to Mr. Windeyer, declined to take any part in the case, considering as he did, that he had no jurisdiction for the defect in the articles. Some intermediate proceedings took place which do not appear in the public proceedings, and it was determined that fresh summonses should be issued, and they were accordingly issued, on the informations of Captain Smith, of Thomas Verney, second officer, and John Peters, chief officer, of the barque Woodlark.

Yesterday, the case was called on, and the seamen appeared with Mr. Dillon to conduct the defence; Mr. Nichols being retained as before, for the prosecution.

The Bench was occupied by the Mayor, Mr. Windeyer, Alderman Allen, Mr. Dawes, and Mr. Campbell.

Mr. DILLON, on behalf of the seamen, took the same objection to the articles which had been previously held fatal by Mr. Campbell but the objection was over-ruled; and Mr. Dillon then objected that the Bench ought not to go on with the case, as it had, he contended, been already disposed of by the Court, although a different magistrate was presiding.

The BENCH determined to go on with the case, and Mr: Campbell, who did not take any part in the proceedings, left the Bench; and the remaining four magistrates proceeded to hear the case.

The information of Captain Smith was to the effect, that he proceeded. as the master of the barque Woodlark, from Sydney, on a whaling voyage, about five months ago; the seamen before the Court having signed articles. and proceeded as seamen on board the said barque. That in the progress of the voyage, and before it was ended, he put into Treasury Island, for the purpose of procuring refreshments; that when he was ready to proceed to sea he ordered the hands to man the windlass, when Faunce said that the crew had made up their minds to do no more work is the vessel unless they had that day's liberty on shore. He ordered those of the crew who would work to go on one side of the deck, and those who would not to go on the other, and the seamen before the Court refused to work. The portion of the crew willing to work got the vessel to sea, and some days afterwards the seamen before the Court were again ordered to their work, but refused. It appeared in evidence that the men were then put in irons, and were kept on bread and water up to the time of their arrival in Sydney. It appeared also that at the time of their first refusal the vessel . was in danger, as she had only one anchor down, and the tide was coming in, and if she had not been put to sea she must have gone on the rocks in half an hour. Further, it appeared that the vessel was compelled to return to Sydney, breaking up the voyage, as only two boats could be lowered for the purpose of catching whales, instead of four, which was the proper number, and the number lowered before these men's refusal to do duty.

The only ground on which the defence rested was, that the seamen had been promised liberty on shore, which was afterwards denied them, and that it was in consequence of this that they refused to go to their duty. But it was contended by Mr. DILLON that this was not a revolt - not such an offence as that contemplated by the law, and for which, if convicted, the seamen would be liable to be transported for life ; and he dwelt especially on the fact that there had been no violence used, and maintained that the seamen must be considered in the light of partners, and were justified in refusing to continue a voyage with a partner - the captain - in whom they had not confidence. The examination and cross-examination of the captain and the two mates occupied some hours, and the speeches of the learned solicitors also took some time.

After some forty minutes' consideration, Alderman ALLEN said, that he was against a committal in this case; but as the Bench differed on various points, they had resolved to ask the opinion of the Attorney-General.

Mr. DAWES said, that he was of opinion that the men before the Court ought to be committed for attempting to make a revolt.

Mr. WINDEYER. said that he agreed on most points with Alderman Allen, and he was opposed to a committal in this case, and one reason was that seeing the enormity of the penalty attached to the offence, he doubted if any jury would convict. The Captain, it appeared to him, although he had used every precaution - as consulting his officers before taking any important step-had yet committed one fault, at least in his opinion, namely, putting the men on bread and water - this was a punishment - it was a punishment which courts of justice again and again made a portion of their sentences. The Captain was justified in securing the seamen - in placing them in irons, if their safe-keeping - or the security of the ship required it; but the putting them on bread and water was an excess of authority. There were other means of punishing the men than that which was now sought to be had recourse to; and therefore he was opposed to sending the men to trial on the capital charge. The seamen might not be aware that in doing what they had done they were exposing themselves to anything more than the forfeiting of their "lay;" this they had forfeited, and there were, as he had already said, other modes of punishment pointed out by the law which might be had recourse to.

The MAYOR said, that he was decidedly of opinion that the men before the Court should be committed to take their trial. He had no doubt of their being guilty of having attempted to create a revolt - and so far as they - nine - were concerned, he considered them guilty of the revolt. He did not consider it an adequate punishment for such an offence that the offender should forfeit his lay (sic); for aught the Bench knew, not one of these men might have anything coming to him - and surely the important interests of the whaling trade were not to be ruined at the whim of a seaman who might choose at any time to put an end to a voyage by refusing to work - persuading himself that in consequence of a decision of the Sydney Bench, all that he would render himself liable to would be the forfeiture of his lay. After paying Captain Smith a high compliment for the way in which he had behaved in the matter, the Mayor remanded the case until Monday next, the seamen being allowed to go out on their own recognizances, to appear on that day.

The whole case will, in the mean time, be submitted to the Attorney-General.

SG & SGTL 6 Dec 1845 - P 304.

^ back to top ^