Roger B. Taney

Name: Dinsman v. Wilkes — Opinion of the Court
Author: Roger B. Taney

Dinsman v. Wilkes — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Dinsman v. Wilkes — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Roger B. Taney. It explores elements such as plaintiff, defendant and jury.

Quotes from Dinsman v. Wilkes — Opinion of the Court (Roger B. Taney)

Roger B. Taney, Dinsman v. Wilkes — Opinion of the Court

“ If they believe, from the whole testimony, that the defendant, in all the acts complained of, was actuated alone by an upright intention to maintain the discipline of his command and the interest of the service in which he was engaged, then the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. But if they find that the punishment of the plaintiff was in any manner or in any degree increased or aggravated by malice or a vindictive feeling towards him on the part of Captain Wilkes, or by a disposition to oppress him, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Dinsman v. Wilkes — Opinion of the Court

“ That the evidence that it was the custom and uniform practice to confine on the armed ships of the United States, in a foreign port, all merchant seamen of the United States, who might there deserve such confinement when they could not be confined on their own ship, was admissible to rebut the inference of a knowledge by the defendant, that the native fort was a proper place for the imprisonment of the plaintiff, sought to be established by the proof that merchant seamen were confined in said fort at the time the plaintiff was there imprisoned. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Dinsman v. Wilkes — Opinion of the Court

“ It was the duty of Captain Wilkes to maintain proper discipline and order among the officers and men under his command, and if a spirit of disobedience and insubordination manifested itself in the squadron, he was bound to suppress it; and he might use severe measures for that purpose, if he deemed such measures necessary. And if, in his judgment, the continued refusal of the plaintiff to do duty made it proper to confine him on shore, rather than on shipboard, in order to reduce him to obedience,-or necessary as an example to deter others from a like offence, he was justified in so doing ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Dinsman v. Wilkes — Opinion of the Court

“ And if it is not, the flag of the United States would soon be dishonored in every sea. But at the same time it must be borne in mind that the nation would be equally dishonored, if it permitted the humblest individual in its service to be oppressed and injured by his commanding officer, from malice or ill-will, or the wantonness of power, without giving him redress in the courts of justice. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Dinsman v. Wilkes — Opinion of the Court

“ That malice means wilful neglect, omission or commission. And unless knowledge was brought home to him of the omission of some inferior officer to discharge his duty, by which under the pretended execution of his order the plaintiff suffered, the defendant is not responsible.
The basis of the whole is a reasonable belief in the existence of a particular state of facts-a discretion to act under that belief, and a resort to ordinary means to execute that act. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Dinsman v. Wilkes — Opinion of the Court

“ For by referring to the report of the case, in page 130, it will be seen that the court said, in express terms, 'that for acts beyond his jurisdiction, or attended with circumstances of excessive severity, arising from ill-will or a depraved disposition, or vindictive feeling, he can claim no exemption.'
The case has no analogy to a suit for a malicious prosecution. That action will lie only in cases where a legal prosecution has been carried on without a probable cause. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Dinsman v. Wilkes — Opinion of the Court

“ The evidence stated in the fourth exception, as to the punishment of Weaver and Waltham, was properly rejected, as it can have no application to the matter in issue.
The opinion in the fifth exception is also correct. For, it appears from record, that Captain Wilkes claimed the right to detain the plaintiff in service during the cruise, under the contract made by the plaintiff with Commodore Jones, in October, 1837, and not under the act of March 2, 1837. He could not, therefore, certify that he had detained him under that act. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Roger B. Taney, Dinsman v. Wilkes — Opinion of the Court

“ Emmons, with the papers attached to it, mentioned in the first exception, was properly admitted, since it was calculated to make an impression on the mind of Captain Wilkes as to the temper and disposition of the marines in one of the vessels composing the squadron. ”

Roger B. Taney

Summary

Quotes from Dinsman v. Wilkes — Opinion of the Court (Roger B. Taney)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature