72 Crossing the Line 



c. 1801, continued 



far from interfering with Maw's tormentors, considerately took care of his 

 watch for him. He was at length torn from his hold, and in spite of all his 

 attempts to escape — his advocate in the action for assault subsequently 

 brought gravely stated that at this juncture his client tried to jump overboard 

 — was taken along the quarter-deck to the waist and forcibly held dov^Ti in 

 a boat placed there half-fuU of dirty water for the business of the day. His 

 eyes were bandaged vdth something not too clean, tar was rubbed upon his 

 face and scraped ofiF again with the usual piece of rusty hoop-iron, and he 

 was duly ducked in the dirty water, all in the most orthodox fashion. 



Mr. Maw brought his action of assault and battery against Learmouth and 

 Raymond, joining as defendants a number of the seamen, members of Nep- 

 tune's gang, whom one would have thought hardly worth legal powder and 

 shot. The case was tried in March, 1802, in the Recorder's Court at Bombay. 

 It was not alleged that the plaintiff had been in any way diflEerently treated 

 from the other six or seven young gentlemen, except in so far as he had him- 

 self accentuated matters by refusing to "come quietly." But consent being 

 of course the crux of the whole matter it could not be denied that a violent 

 assault had been made upon him. The sea custom was merely mentioned by 

 the defence as some palliation of what had occurred, and it is of interest to 

 note that in 1802 it was stated to have been "put a stop to from a sense of 

 its impropriety in nine ships out of ten." It is rather surprising that Captain 

 Gardiner of the Scaleby Castle was allowed to escape responsibility for what 

 was going on in his own ship by simply remaining below. He was called as 

 a vwtness to testify to the impropriety of the plaintiff's treatment and was 

 permitted to say that he (the Captain) would not have allowed it had he 

 been present, but he was not made a defendant, and the Judge at the hearing 

 contented himself with the mild observation that he wished Gardiner had 

 been on deck. The responsibiUty of the first and third officers was patent: 

 they were in charge of the deck the whole time, and according to one wit- 

 ness Learmouth had hhnself throvim a bucket of water over the plantiff. 

 Thus encouraged by their officers not very much blame perhaps attached to 

 the seamen: and the 400 rupees, which were awarded as damages against 

 all the defendants generally, were no doubt levied against Messrs. Lear- 

 mouth and Raymond, as the Recorder suggested. 



In the later case — or rather cases — heard in the Small Cause Court at 

 Madras in September, 1851, the Captain and First Officer of the True Briton 

 were separately sued by a passenger named King, a ship's steward, who had 

 been lathered vdth a mixture of flour and water and well drenched in salt 

 water in a "crossing of the hne" diversion on board that ship. Some week or 

 two before the hearing twelve saloon passengers advertised in the Madras 

 Spectator a testimonial to Captain Roe's "unremitting endeavours" to pro- 

 mote their comfort during the voyage, and signffied their intention to present 

 him ■with a piece of plate. Whether this public eulogium had any effect or 

 not, or whether King's excitable behaviour — he was said to have broken the 



