HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0140 and id is 1 raw text is: DEL CAMPO AND MARTINEZ V. REG. [1837]
sort, I do not know; I should be very sorry to be obliged to decide that they were. But
it is enough to say, that in this case it is perfectly immaterial; because, whether
those questions were properly put or not, the answers are undoubtedly in his favour.
At first it struck me that he did not swear in the sort of way in his affidavit, par-
ticularly, that I should have expected a man in his situation to swear. He puts his
knowledge a little too much upon the correspondence which had taken, [14] place
between him and his employers; he does not distinctly deny that he might not have
had knowledge from some other communication. But when he comes to be examined
in answer to one of the questions that were put to him, he upon his oath distinctly
states that he had no knowledge whatever of this ship being about to be dispatched
in a slave voyage. Whether right or wrong, those who proceed for this penalty have
thought proper to put in this evidence; they have made it evidence, and the Appellant
has a right to take advantage of it. But I beg leave to say, that it strikes me that
there is nothing in this case to weigh down. the positive testimony obtained from
this man. We have here direct evidence that he did not kn.ow; we have no direct
evidence that he did know; we have no circumstance from which we can fairly infer
that he did know.
I am bound therefore, in justice to my opinion, and their Lordships instruct me
so to say, that there is not that proof of knowledge, which will warrant this Court,
in supporting the judgment that has been, given by the Court below for this penalty.
The Court therefore are of opinion that this appeal must be allowed.
[5 Geo. IV. c. 113, has now to be read with the Slave Trade Consolidation Act, 1873
(36 and 37 Vict. c. 88). See note to Muter v. Chipchase, 1836, 1 Moo. P.C. 3, as
to appeals from Colonial Courts of Admiralty to the Privy Council. Cf. Beg. v.
Zulueta, 1843, 1 C. and K. 215; 6 St. Tr. (N.S.) 1103 as to guilty knowledge.
As to appearance under protest (2 Moo. P.C. 6) cf. Lougitnan v. Haji Joosub
Blulladina-Te Hydroos, 1851, 7 Moo. P.C. 373.]
[15] ON APPEAL FROM THE VICE -ADMIRALTY COURT AT GIBRALTAR.
PEDRO FELIPE DEL CAMPO, and PEDRO MARTINEZ of Cadiz, Merchants,-
Appellants; Our Sovereign Lady the Queen, and ILTED NICHOLL, Esq. Her
Majesty's Procurator-General,-Respondents,*-[July 5, 1837].
The Ship CAZADOR.
The receiving goods on board a slave ship, is the joint act of the owner and
master of the vessel; and the penalties given by 5 Geo. IV. c. 113, sec. 7, are
in such. case joint and not several.
The owner of a vessel, though a subject of the Queen of Spain, and resident at
Cadiz, is liable to the forfeitures and penalties incurred under the Slave
Abolition Act, if his vessel came within a British port.
This was the appeal of the other Defendants in the last case, the circumstances of
which are there fully detailed.
On the 28th of September 1836, an Inhibition issued under the seal of this Court,
upon an appeal, so far as the same rejected the claims, and condemned the ship, and
the property, goods, and effects of the owner thereof: also so far as the same con-
demned Pedro Felipe del Campo, and Pedro Martinez in the penalty of £10,000
each, and in costs.
The Appellants prayed their Lordships to reverse the decision of the Vice-
Admiralty Court at Gibraltar, for the following reasons :-
I. Because the ship and the goods belonging to the owner of the ship could not be
* Present: Lord Brougham, Mr. Baron Parke, Sir John Nicoll, and the Right
Honourable Sir Herbert Jenner, D.C.L.
II MOORE, 14](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0140&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)