Navigating the Lower Saint Lawrence in the 19th Century.
Quebec Gazette #5683 10/02/1841 Page 2, Col. 1C. | ||
|---|---|---|
| MOTHER WIT vs. PRESUMPTUOUS IGNORANCE. | ||
Examination of the mate of the Prince of Wales, in a case for damage in consequence of being run foul of by the Lady Elizabeth, in the Downs. |
||
|
"You have already stated, that the wind shifted in the evening.
What time did the wind shift?" "The latter part of the dog watch," replied the witness. "I ask not during which dog's watch it was, my question refers to time. What hour was it when the wind shifted?" "About three bells." "Three o'clock, eh?" "I never said three o'clock," returned the witness, marking the lawyer's mistake. "I said three bells - half past five, in the four-to-six watch." "Three bells - half-past five - four-to-six," iterated Waddy. "What a precise specification of time. Well, then Sir, at three bells, - how was the weather then?" "Greasy looking to the sow-west - sun too looked wild and watery. Anyone with half an eye could a-seed a breeze was a-brewin." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "When the Lady Elizabeth cast anchor, did she take up a position properly apart from the Prince of Wales?" "She did, but -" "Come, no buts, Sir, - answer the question direct." "Well, then, I says, when one takes into account the sarcumstances as might deceive the best man in taking up a distance, I must say as the bark might 'ave taken up a worse berth." "In what way could that deception arise?" "Why, from our buoy not watching at the time." "The boy not watching at the time, - lazy dog. The murder's coming out," said Waddy, exultingly; and then desiring the witness to reply direct to the next question which he was about to put to him, and, above all, to be cautious of prevarication, he thus proceeded. "I ask you, Sir, as a seaman, on your oath, would matters have gone the wrong way with the Prince of Wales, had there been a proper watch upon deck?" The absurdity of this question, added to the pompous declamatory tone to which it was delivered, excited so much noise and mirth amongst the nautical portion of the auditory, that it became necessary to eject from Court a couple of Sunderland "skippers." Upon the restoration of order, and the repetition of the question, the witness replied: "There was a watch upon deck." "My Lud," said Waddy, turning to the bench, "this is positively the grossest case of prevarication I every met with. Do you persist in swearing," he continued, interrogating the witness, "that a proper watch had been on deck when the wind shifted?" "I do," replied the mate, in a firm and emphatic tone. "Come you here, Sir, to insult common sense? It is possible you possess effrontery sufficient to tell those intelligent gentlemen" (pointing to the jury) "that in a vessel situated as the Prince of Wales was - bad weather coming on with all - the watch should have devolved on a dumb animal?" The witness looked blank. "Do you hear, sir?" vociferated the bully. "I doesn't understand you," replied the deponent, with perfect composure. The question was shaped anew. "I ask you, Sir, whether it was fitting to entrust a vessel exposed to the elements, as well as to the privateers of the enemy, to the vigilance of a dumb animal - to the watch of a dog?" "There was never a dog aboard," said the witness, bluntly. "And yet, gentlemen of the jury, the witness has had the audacity to assert upon oath that the wind shifted during the latter part of the dogs's watch!" "Bill, let's bolt," said an auditor, addressing a brother tar, in the rear of the Court, "By the Lord Harry, there's no standing that squinting beggar's lubberly lip." The judge had already decided that the witness was bound to state distinctly the description of watch which had been left upon the brig's deck. |
||
|
The witness said, "James Thompson, my lor, had charge of the deck
during the whole of the four-to-six watch. A better seaman never
puddened an anchor, hauled out a weather earing, or took lead or
helm in hand." "Then how comes it," asked the lawyer of the witness, "that this super excellent seaman was not as competent to prevent the Lady Elizabeth running aboard of the Prince as the boy of whom you so much boast? ("Some brat of his own"), added Waddy, aside to the jury. The witness not appearing to comprehend the question, the judge directed Waddy to repeat it. "I ask the witness, my lud, if the boy, whose dexterity in taking up a distance he so much extols, could have prevented the dangerous proximity of the Lady Elizabeth to the Prince of Wales - why, then, I ask, as a mere matter of precaution, was not this matchless, quick-sighted lad, put upon the watch?" The mate remained mute. "Put it more directly, Mr. Waddy," said the judge. Waddy bowed to the bench. "Why was not the boy put upon the watch?" "Because' twanted bleeding," was the acute reply. "Had you a surgeon in the ship?" At this question, the assumed gravity of the witness was put to the test. It was with difficulty he could refrain from laughing aloud - he, however, answered in the negative. "No surgeon in the ship?" "Sartinly not." "Then, how, Sir, can you take upon yourself to give an opinion upon a medical point? Pray, Sir, have you made physic, as well as seaman-ship, a study?" "I can't abide physic - never took a dose in my life." "Then upon what grounds do you assert that the boy wanted bleeding?" "Cause 'twas full o' water." "Gracious heaven!" exclaimed Waddy, with extended arms "was ever greater ignorance betrayed! My lud, the jury never can receive such testimony. Whoever heard of resorting to depletion in a dropsical case?" "I say it again," rejoined the witness, looking at Waddy full in the face, "the buoy wanted tapping." "Never, never, was there an instance of grosser prevarication! Note this, gentlemen of the jury, he first swears that the boy wanted bleeding, and now that he finds himself in error, he turns from the operation of bleeding to that to tapping!" "Well, I says so still - bleeding's just as proper a tarm as tapping - take the turns out of that if you can." said the mate, in a tone of difiance. "I can't suffer you, my man, to be insolent to counsel," said the judge, addressing the witness in a peremptory tone. "I am not insolent, my lord; but where's the man, my lord, as can bear to be bullied and badgered by a lubberly lawyer as doesn't know the main-brace from the captain's breeches?" This burst of offended feeling excited in the Court a sensation not to be described. The sons of the sea were rubbing their huge hands with glee and delight, whilst expressions of surprise, and scowls of indignation betrayed themselves in the tell-tale features of the members of the bar. |
||
| G.R. Bossé© 1998-2003. |
Posted: Nov. 1st, 1998. |
Updated: July 15, 2003. |
 |