1788-12-01 (static/transcriptions/1788/12/041.jpg)

In the Case of Wall v McNamara (at N. Prins) same book pa 536 Ld Mansfield, in summing up to the jury, said, “In trying the legality of acts done by military officer in the exercise of their duty, particularly beyond the seas, where cases may occur without the possibility of application for propery advice, great latitude ought to be allowed, and they ought not to suffer for a slip of form, if their intention appears by the evidence to have been upright; it is the same as when complaints are brot agt inferior civil magistrates, such as justices of the peace for acts done by them in the exercise of their civil duty. There the principal enquiry to be made, by a court of justice, is how the heart stood. And if there appears to be nothing wrong there, great latitude will be allowed for misapprehension or mistake. But on the other hand, if the heart if wrong, if cruelty, malice, and oppression, appear to have occasioned, or aggravated the imprison or other injury complained of, they shall not cover themselves with the thin veil of legal forces, nor escape, under the cover of a justification the most technically regular, from that punish such it is your province & your duty to inflict on so scandalous an abuse of public trust.” To the motives here mention’d (said Mr. Davies) cruelty, malice & oppression I may add Avarice. If Avarice appears to have caused the Injury, the inference is the same. In the same case of Johnstone v Sutton, pa 538 the case of Sutherland v Murray is recited. There the declaration stated, that the defendant was governor of Minorea, & vice-admiral of the island; that the Plf was judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court, with all fees, emoluments, &c and that the Deft, to injure & oppress him, maliciously, &
witht