| |
|
The Times, April 25th 1878 |
| |
| ALLEGED MURDER AT SEA. - Richard Proudfoot, the master, W.
Strickland, the mate, and James Murray, boatswain, of the bark Meggie
Dixon, were again brought before the Falmouth magistrates yesterday
on the charge of conspiring to murder Charles Cooper, an apprentice on
board the same vessel, while on a voyage to Penang. William Hall,
ordinary seaman, gave evidence to the effect that on one occasion
deceased was put into the forepeak to remove coals, where he was kept
for 24hours, and when brought out was compelled to walk the deck for one
hour with two planks, 6ft, long on his shoulder. Deceased had to work,
when the other members of the crew had holidays. The boatswain would
sometimes rub the ropes across his nose until it bled, and he was
subjected to frequent blows to face. His hair was cut very close, and
on one occasion his head was tarred. The boatswain had scrubbed him with
a piece of canvas, and witness saw that his body was covered with
bruises. The skin was broken on places on his legs and back. Witness
remembered deceased being sent aloft 12 times at midnight and made to
crow like a cock. The day he fell from the yard and was drowned he was
looking very ill, and was not in a fit condition to be on deck. His
eyes was sunken in his head, and his body much emaciated. Witness and
others of the crew were requested to give the deceased only such food as
the captain ordered. Witness once give him a portion of his pudding,
and the boatswain indicted extra two hours at the wheel for it. Charles
Lind, an apprentice, said deceased when he joined the ship was stout and
healthy, and, moreover, good-tempered, well-behaved, and obedient. Soon
after leaving the Channel the mate and boatswain commenced to ill-treat
him. On one occasion deceased stole some slush from the forecastle in
order to appease his hunger. Three weeks before his death he was put
into the lee scuppers and scrubbed with a broom, salt water being at the
same time thrown over him. His body was covered with sores and spots,
The mate on one occasion struck deceased with the hook of a tackle
block, penetrating the flesh under the arm. Deceased would frequently
cry out, 'Oh Lord' Leave me alone'. Thomas Waby, A. B., said he saw the
mate on one occasion, hold the deceased by the neck and made him cry for
mercy. Deceased was badly treated, chiefly by the mate. The captain
once struck him for not keeping his cloths in order. Witness saw the
mate throw water over Cooper while he was in his berth. He had been
sent on watch half naked. The prisoners were sent to take their trial
for manslaughter, bail being refused. |
| |
| |
| |
|
The Times, August 2nd 1878 |
| |
|
WESTERN CIRCUIT BODMIN, JULY 30 |
CROWN COURT. - (Before Mr Justice DENMAN)
Richard Proudfoot, 35, master mariner, of good education, William
Henry Strickland, 21 mate, also of good education, James Murray, 26,
boatswain, able to read, were indicated for the manslaughter of Charles
Astley Cooper, on the high seas, on August 4, 1877.
Mr Collins, Q. C. and Mr M'Kellar prosecuted on behalf of the
Treasury; Mr Carter and Hon. Claud Vivian defend the master; Mr Poole
and Mr. Pitt-Lewis the other two prisoners.
Mr COLLINS, in opening the case for the prosecution, said that the
prisoners, who were the officers of the bark
Meggie Dixon, were charged with having grossly ill-treated the
deceased, an apprentice, aged 21 years, over a period of three months,
while on a voyage from Sunderland to Padang in Sumatra, the consequence
of the ill-treatment being that the lad was reduced to a skeleton and to
such a state of weakness that he was utterly unfit to go aloft, and
having been sent aloft, fell overboard and was drowned. The learned
counsel then briefly stated the facts of the case, which were supported
by the following evidence:-
Charles Edward Beach, assistant to the Registrar-General of seaman,
proved that the Meggie Dixon was a British bark of 473 tons
register. The crew should consist of 11, all told, including officers
and apprentices. There were in fact 13 on board, of whom two were
apprentices.
Fritz Ropcke said,- I was cook and steward on board the Meggie
Dixon. She sailed on May 1, 1877, on a voyage from Sunderland to
Padang in Sumatra. The deceased was an apprentice, it was his first
voyage, and he knew nothing about ships. He was very healthy, He was
put into the mate's watch. The mate used to rope's-end him. He used to
do it constantly. The boy got thinner and thinner, and at last got like
a skeleton. He was treated very badly the whole time. On August 4th I
got my coffee ready at 5 o'clock. The mate and the carpenter were there
at the time. Cooper was on the lookout, the mate called him and said
'Go up to the royal-yard and cry 'Cuckoo'. He went. When he came down
the mate asked the carpenter to help to give him a scrub down. The
carpenter would not. The mate then made Cooper strip, he then had water
thrown over him and broomed him down with a new whalebone broom. His
clothes were washing about on deck. He was like a skeleton, and black
and blue all over. I saw that there was a large wound on his thigh. He
had many other wounds on him. The mate grumbled that he did not come on
deck. Later in the day the captain rope's-ended him. Four or five
minutes afterwards the captain gave the order to reef topsails. I sew
the boatswain kicking Cooper along the deck. He then hit him three
times with a rope and ordered him to go up aloft. I went down below and
came up again, and I heard the boy crying out, 'Oh God, leave me
alone,' Afterwards I heard the cry. 'A man overboard,' and I saw
Cooper in the sea. I never saw him after. The captain ordered me to
throw a lifebuoy overboard, and the ship was weared, but we could not
pick him up.
Cross-examined by Mr. CARTER- When there was a cry of ' A man
overboard' the captain did not put the ship about as quickly as he
might. I threw a buoy overboard. I took 20 minutes to do it. The
captain made me fasten a rope to the buoy before throwing it over. The
lad could not swim, and he had on sea boots and a big coat.
Cross-examined by Mr. POOLE- The deceased could go up and down the
rigging very well. I did not see sores on him when he first came on
board. The ship was under manned, and it took sometimes ten times as
long as it ought to reef. I never saw other men rope-ended. I remember
the police coming on board at Falmouth. Petrie, the carpenter, did not
say, 'Now there is going to be a row' it's all along of having no
liberty at Padang. I never taxed the boatswain with Cooper's death.
Re-examined by Mr. COLLINS- The complaint I sent to the board of
trade was written by the second mate of the barque Kingdom of Fife at
Padang, at my dictation. I could not write myself. It was as follows-
'Padang. Sumatra, barque Meggie Dixon, July 27, 1877. 'To the
President of the board of trade, London. 'Sir- I bet to call your
attention to the ill-treatment practised on the crew by the captain,
mate and boatswain, for every day the mate and boatswain are beating and
kicking some of the crew. But more especially I must drew your
attention to the case of an apprentice named Charles Cooper. belonging
to Hull, who was drowned by falling overboard from the foretopsail yard
on the 4th August, while on our passage from Sunderland to this port.
The first month he was brutally beaten and kicked by the mate, but then
being shifted into the boatswain's watch, the boatswain ill-used worse,
and then at the end of the third month the captain began to ill-use him
by beating and starving him, and threatened the crew, if any of them
gave him anything, that he would starve them, after this he had got the
scurvy, and then the captain rope's-ended him because he had scurvy, and
the only food that he had was barley and rice, and very little of that,
and shortly before he was drowned the boatswain threatened to throw him
overboard, and when he fell from the yard I heard him asking the
boatswain for mercy and not to strike him any more, and when I taxed the
boatswain with throwing him overboard he showed signs of trouble, and on
previous occasions when I had interfered to prevent his being
ill-treated I was threatened with violence by the boatswain. The
captain's name is Pratpool.
[sic] The mate's name is Strickland, and the boatswain is unknown.
Trusting that you will not neglect this case as a worse one could not
be. 'I remain your humble servant,
[signed] Fritz Ropcke. Steward British bark Meggie Dixon,
of Amble. (This was also signed by C. Smith, A. B.; John
Slatttery, boy; George Barnes, O. S.; T. Waby, A. B.; William Hall, O.
S.; John Henderson, A. B.; Andrew Petrie, carpenter.) |
| |
| |
By the JUDGE - When the boy fell over I heard some one say, 'Now he
has done it at last,' and the boatswain looked frightened.
Charles Smith, able seaman, gave similar evidence as to acts of
ill-treatment by the mate and boatswain.
Andrew Petrie, the carpenter, gave corroborative evidence, and said
that at the time of the lad's death his eyes were sunk into his head,
and he was in a very bad state. The lad was very greedy and would over
eat himself and be sick, and he was also very dirty, and the men
complained of him. The witness was never ill-used, but the crew were.
Charles Lind, apprentice, 18, said-Cooper was stout and healthy. The
mate used to strike him and beat with his fists and a rope's end. Blood
came from his ears. I have seen him sent aloft by all three officers to
crow like a cock and say 'cuckoo'. He would go as fast as he could, but
the captain wanted him to go faster. I have seen him scrubbed by the
mate with a whalebone broom, while Barnes poured water over him. He was
covered with sores and had the scurvy. I saw the mate give him three
dozen with a cane. After the death of Cooper, the captain asked me to
write home to Cooper's brother and say that he would send full
particulars. He told me to say that there was no foul play. It is not
true that Cooper fell overboard by his own carelessness.
Cross-examined by Mr. POOLE- I believe the deceased was so weak from
his ill-treatment that he fell overboard. I tarred Cooper's head once
by the boatswain's orders. I said before the magistrates that I had
nothing to do with tarring his head, but that referred to a prior
occasion. George Barnes, ordinary seaman, swore to various acts of
cruelty. The mate on one occasion had Cooper held down naked over a
windlass while he flogged him with a cane.
Wightman Cooper, the brother of the deceased, an apothecary's
assistant, who stated that the lad's health had been good for years
before went to sea, said - When the ship arrived at Falmouth I went on
board. The captain asked me to come below into his cabin, He said that
although he had seen me before, he could not muster up courage to speak
to me then. He said 'When your brother came on board he gave me this
seal. Do not be so much affected, others were ill-treated besides your
brother. I cannot deny that other officers were brutal and bad men, and
I should like to give evidence against them if it would help the case.
I have a wife and family, can you help me? I said it was out of my
power.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
It was submitted on the part of the prisoners that there was no
case to go to the jury. First as regards all the three prisoners, the
death of the deceased was not the direct result of their act. The death
was caused by the deceased falling overboard, and this was said by the
prosecution to be caused by his weakness resulting from bad treatment.
There was no proof of that, and even if there were the cause was far too
remote from the results. A man who injured another's leg might as well
be indicated for manslaughter because the latter subsequently was unable
to run away from a mad bull, and so was killed. Secondly, it was argued
that the mate being below when the order to go aloft was given could not
be responsible. Also the boatswain was bound to obey the captain's
order, and so could not be responsible for ordering the deceased aloft.
For the prosecution it was said that the prisoners knew the duties
and position of their apprentice, they knew it was part of his duty to
go aloft, and if by a systematic course of ill-usage they so weakened
him that going aloft was dangerous, and he did go aloft under orders and
was drowned, they were guilty of manslaughter. As to the captain, he
was peculiarly in charge of the deceased, who was an apprentice, and it
was his duty to see that in the state he was in he did not go aloft to
do dangerous work, and as to the boatswain, he could not shelter himself
from ordering the deceased aloft by saying he was ordered to do so. He
might as well shield himself from larceny by saying the captain told him
to steal.
The learned Judge said that the case was the most difficult one he
ever had to deal with and there were no authorities on the point. He
should leave the questions to the jury- 1st, whether the death of Cooper
was directly owing to his having been reduced by acts of the three men
to such a state that he was unfit to do his ordinary duties. 2nd,
Whether, if the death could not be directly ascribed to those acts, it
was ascribable to the unlawful conduct of either the captain or
boatswain or both. Which would depend on whether they knew that sending
the deceased aloft was so dangerous that it was highly probable he would
meet his death therefrom. Whatever answers the jury gave to those
questions, the learned Judge said he should grant a case for the
consideration of the Court of Crown Cases.
Mr. COLLINS then summed up the case for the prosecution.
Mr. CARTER, in addressing the jury in defence of the captain,
characterized the whole of the story of the crew as a gross
fabrication. Why did Ropcke in the memorial say that he had taxed the
mate with knocking Cooper overboard?. That was deliberate falsehood on
his own admission. Was not the rest like it? The crew admitted they
did not know the contents of the document when they signed. Then the
wicked story of the deceased's brother was a lie concocted at the last
moment. Why had it only just been told to the court?.
Mr. POOLE addressed the jury on behalf of the mate and boatswain.
He said the grave difficulty in the case was that it was, no doubt
founded on a substratum of truth. Of course there was some ill-usage on
board, and on that the crew had - and they had ample time to do so on
their long voyage home - concocted as gross and malicious a story as
could be conceived. It could not be contradicted, except out of the
witnesses' own mouths, as they had gone against all the officers, so
that they could not give evidence in each other's favour. The crew were
- they had it on their own admission - a drunken, lying lot. They would
not work, and had to be dragged out of bed and made to go aloft, and
they had their liberty refused at Padang. What further motive could be
required for their conduct?. When their story is looked at, it is so
fiendish as to be improbable, it is steeped in contradiction and
admitted lies. If the story was but half true, Cooper must have died
before August 4 from the treatment he suffered and yet there is no
evidence that he was laid by for a single day. As to the specific act
of ordering him up aloft on August 4, the crew was in such a miserable
state and so incompetent, that it was in all probability, absolutely
necessary that the deceased, whatever his state, should do the little he
could. Moreover, there was absolutely no evidence that the fall was not
a accident, such as might have happened to any other of the crew. Then
as to the tale of the brother. Could the jury possibly believe a story
admitted by the prosecution to have been told to them after the trial
had lasted a whole day by a man who was before the magistrates and heard
all that there went on?
Evidence was then given of good character on the part of the captain
and mate. The learned JUDGE, in summing up the case, said that it was
one of the very highest importance. It was important that sailors, a
class of men who were ignorant and generally incapable of looking after
themselves, should be protected by the law from brutal ill-treatment,
but it was also important that anything like a conspiracy on the part of
a crew against their officers should not be allowed to put them in peril
by stopping their mouths. The main grounds of the defence was that the
whole story was a gross exaggeration agreed on by the crew. The jury
must examine into the acts of cruelty detailed, and if they found that
they were described by the witness falsely and with such a degree of
circumstance that it was probable that the details were agreed on, they
would look with the up most suspicion on the whole story. The learned
judge then went very carefully through the evidence. and pointed out
that if they had any grave doubt on the case the evidence of character
was very material. The points for the consideration of the jury were
these - Was the falling overboard the cause of death; Was the sole
cause of the falling overboard weakness, which disabled him from holding
on? Was that weakness, reduced by systematic illusage; if so, which of
the prisoners were guilty of that illusage? Was the illusage part of a
system or was it a series of isolated acts, mere instances of bona
fide
indiscretion?. Were acts done which materially contributed to the
state of the deceased, if he was in a state of weakness? Were the
captain and the boatswain, or either of them, guilty of gross negligence
in sending the deceased aloft? The learned judge said that he could not
ask the jury to answer the points specifically, but must require them,
in the light they afforded, to answer the single question :- Are you
satisfied that the three prisoners or either of them, are guilty of
manslaughter- i.e., of doing unlawful acts which caused the death of the
deceased? The jury, after an absence of an hour and a half, returned
into the court and asked whether they were confined to the question of
manslaughter.
The learned Judge said they were.
The jury then said that they found the prisoners Not Guilty
of manslaughter.
The learned Judge said he should, in order to guide the prosecution
in the order indictments for assaults and ill-treatment which had been
found by the grand jury, asked the jury whether they found the prisoners
not guilty on the grounds that they did not believe the tale of the
crew, or whether they merely thought that there was no evidence of
manslaughter.
The jury replied that if the question had been one of the existence
of cruelty they would have found a different verdict.
Mr. COLLINS, on the part of the prosecution, then said that he
should proceed on the order medicated, but it was agreed by all parties
not to do so until the next assizes.
The prisoners were, accordingly, taken back to gaol. |
| |
| |
| |
|
The Times, November 2nd 1878 |
| |
| WESTERN CIRCUIT |
| EXETER, OCT 29, 30 AND
31 |
| Before Lord Chief Justice COLERIDGE |
| |
Richard Proudfoot, 35, master mariner, of good education;
William Henry Strickland, 21, mate, also of good education; and James
Murray, 26, boatswain, able to read, were indicated for having grossly
ill-treated Charles Astley Cooper, an apprentice, age 21, for a period
of over three months.
The prosecution was instituted by the treasury, at the desire of the
Board of Trade.
Mr. Collins, Q. C. and Mr. M'Kellar prosecuted , Mr. Carter and the
Hon. O. Vivian defended the master, Mr. Poole the other two prisoners.
The prisoners were indicted at the last Cornwall Assizes, for the
manslaughter of Cooper, the charge being that, by a continual course of
ill-treatment on board the barque Meggie Dixon, while on a voyage from
Sunderland to Padang in Sumatra, they had reduce him to such a weak
state that he was unable to discharge his duties, that while in that
state he had been sent aloft, and having falling overboard from weakness
was drowned. The jury, however, were not satisfied that the
ill-treatment was the direct cause of death, and returned a verdict of
Not Guilty, but said that if the question had been merely one of
ill-usage they should have returned a different verdict. There being
other indictments against the prisoners for ill-usage, Mr. Collins
intimated that he should proceed on the minor charges. By consent of
all parties the case was adjourned to the present Assizes. |
| |
The story now told by the witnesses disclosed a course of the
most revolting cruelty on the part of the prisoners. It appeared that
the deceased, who had been a chemist's assistant, had long had desire to
go to sea, and after so talk with one Lind, an apprentice on board the
barque Meggie Dixon, he went off with and entered the Meggie Dixon as an
apprentice. The Meggie Dixon was a barque of 473 tons register, and
had 13 hands, all told. Cooper was entirely ignorant of seamanship, had
no proper clothes, and used on cold days to go aloft in a long Ulster
coat. He was a tall, healthy lad when he first came on board. At first
he was put into the mate's watch, but was so ill-treated and ropesended
that the steward, Ropcke, a Swede, complained to the captain, who had
him moved into his own watch, saying he would not have the lad
ill-treated. After some time the lad appears to have been treated badly
by all the prisoners. He got the scurvy. The captain ropesended him to
'let him know what the scurvy was' and ordered him to be fed on rice and
barley only, and said he would starve any of the crew who fed him. The
crew appear, however to have given him food surreptitiously, On one
occasion, with the scurvy on him, he was told to shift coals to the fore
peak, and the captain said he was to have no food till he had filled
it. This took the lad over 21 hours, and on the steward giving him
secretly a bottle of water and a biscuit, the captain, who saw it, took
both away. On more than one occasion, while Cooper was black and blue
with bruises, he was stripped, doused with sea water, and scrubbed with
a whalebone broom, and his head was tarred and greased. He was made to
go up and down the rigging for 50 times in succession, and was made to
cry 'cuckoo' each time he got to the masthead. The mate said to the
boatswain, 'do not let the lunatic have any rest'. The boatswain said,
'I will take care of that'. The lad appears to have been ropesended,
knocked across the back of the neck so that blood came from his ears,
and held down over a capstan and flogged with a rattan. In answer to a
question of the learned judge, one witness said that the lad was covered
with lice, which he was made by the mate to eat. He at last grew like a
skeleton, and used to steal what food he could get; even taking out of a
barrel the slush used for greasing the masts. In this state he was
ordered aloft in a gale of wind, was driven and kicked up by the
boatswain, and finally fell overboard, the last words he was heard to
utter being 'O god leave me alone!' Every exertion was made to pick him
up but in vain. Charles Lind, the apprentice, who was of superior
education, wrote at the captain's desire a letter to the deceased
brother saying that Cooper had fallen overboard through his own
carelessness, and that there had been no foul play. This letter he give
open to the captain. He now stated that the contents of the letter were
false, and he only said what he did from fear of the captain, as Cooper
was really grossly maltreated. On arrival at Padang a memorial was
drawn up by the steward, signed by him and seven others of the crew, and
sent to the board of trade, calling their attention to the matter. The
captain learning this endeavoured to get the crew to sign a paper to the
effect that the memorial was untrue, but they refused. On arrival at
Falmouth the captain called on the deceased brother, and said that he
know that the lad was ill-treated, but it was all done by the mate and
boatswain, who got the upper hand.
Mr. Collins in summing up the case to the jury, pointed out the
strong corroboration of the crew's story in the passage in Lind's letter
to the effect that there had been no foul play. Why should such a
statement have been made when it would never have entered the mind of
the recipient of the letter that there had been any?
The defence was that the story of the
crew was the result of a conspiracy got up by them against their
officers in revenge for having their liberty stopped at Padang, a story
difficult to refute, as it was founded on a substratum of truth. The
facts no doubt true, but were grossly exaggerated. Cooper was a lazy
landlubber, and it was in evidence that he was dirty and inordinately
greedy. The story of the starvation arose out of the captain having
strictly forbidden any meat being given to the boy, as it would have
been poison to him with the scurvy on him. Treatment at sea was well
know to be rough, and such as could easy exaggerated without fear of
contradiction, especially if those who were charged with ill-treatment
were the officer and all charged in a body, so that they could have no
evidence of a fellow officer in their defence.
The jury found all the prisoners Guilty, but added that they
considered the captain the least culpable. The
learned Judge in passing sentence said that the case was one of immense
importance, and it was a subject of congratulation that it had been
taken up by the Board of Trade and Treasury. No doubt the officers
of a ship must be endued with despotic authority - it was necessary for
the safety of all that it should be so, but it was awful to find how
that authority could be abused and terrible to think of the poor lad
hunted by his superiors in mid-ocean, with no possibility of escape or
refuge. He fully agreed with what the jury had appended to their
verdict as he considered that the captain had been overborne by his
inferior officers, though he had at last, unable to resist, behaved with
almost equal cruelty. He should sentence him to 12 months' hard
labour. As to the others, he must make an example of them, and should
therefore sentence each of them to five years penal servitude.
|
| Notes: 'ropesended' or 'rope's end' is the
punishment of flogging with a length of rope. The text refers to the
ship's destination both as penang and padang. |
| |
|
