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/ssactsengr0152 and id is 1 raw text is: LOZANO V. JANSON
upon them, water is introduced into them, which supports floating warehouses, in
which the goods are stowedI This is the view we took of a similar enactment in a
local Act, in Regina v. Midland Railway Company (4 E. & B. 958), where we held that
the word land, so used, must mean land occupied for cultivation, and could not
include land used for a line of railway, although there was no building upon it, nor
anything beyond a rod of iron. The case of Regina v. Southwark and Vauzhall Water
Company (6 E. & B. 1008) was much relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants.
When the facts of that case and the ratio decidendi are examined, it will be found not
at all to be at variance with the doctrine which I now propound. Certain conduit
mains and pipes belonging to a water Company passed under [159] the soil of the high-
ways in the parish of Putney, and it was expressly found that the Company had no
works in the parish. They were, therefore, to be considered as the occupiers of the
land on which the pipes lay. Coleridge J. said :.Seeing that the appellants would
be rateable only as occupiers of land, they are clearly not to be rated at the higher
rate. Wightman J. said: Pipes are not rateable per se, but only because the
owner by them occupies land. So being an occupier of land, he is liable to the
lower rate. Erle J. said: Pipes are not houses, or property of that kind ; and
Lord Campbell C.J. said : The appellants are not rated as being occupiers of pipes:
they are rated as being occupiers of the land which they occupy by means of those
pipes. In this case the property in the basin and dock may derive material benefit
from the approaches to the establishment being lighted, at the expense of the rate ;
and it must be greatly protected by the watchmen who are appointed by the Commis-
sioners to guard it. I have only further to add that the size of the dock and basin,
so much dwelt upon, seems to me to be quite immaterial; and that this attempt to
separate the part of the establishment which, for the purposes of the establishment, is
covered with water, from the rest of the works, cannot succeed unless the appellants
could have supported a claim to be rated on the lower scale for half a rood of land
used within the enclosure as a reservoir for water to supply the boiler of a steam
engine, which aids the operations going on in the establishment. For these reasons,
I am of opinion, with my brothers Wightman and Crompton, that we ought to give
judgment for the respondents.
Judgment for the respondents.
(160] LOZANO AND OTHERS against JANSON. Thursday, June 16th, 1859. Plaintiffs,
merchants in London, as agents for F., a Brazilian subject residing at Loanda,
chartered the British ship Newport to carry a cargo of goods on behalf of F.
from London to Ambriz or Loanda, on the coast of Africa, and to reload there a
homeward cargo of African produce for London. They afterwards, on 9th June,
1854, on F.'s behalf, insured the Newport's outward cargo at and from London
to Ambriz or Loanda, by a policy underwritten by defendant. The perils insured
against were, inter alia, takings at sea, arrests, restraints and detainments of all
kings, princes and people, of what nature, condition, or quality soever. In June,
1854, the Newport sailed with this cargo, consigned to F. at Loanda. On
21st September, 1854, while on the voyage out, she was seized, near Ambriz, by
a Queen's ship, under stat. 5 G. 4, c. 113, s. 4, for being illegally engaged in the
slave trade; and was sent, with the cargo, to St. Helena for adjudication. On
16th October, 1854, ex parte proceedings were instituted in the Vice Admiralty
Court at St. Helena, which Court, on 20th November, 1854, condemned the ship
to be forfeited ; and, under sect. 7 of the statute, condemned plaintiffs, as shippers
of the cargo, in penalties amounting to double the value of the goods, and in costs ;
and ordered the goods to be held in deposit till payment of the penalties and
costs. The ship was sold under order of the Court; as was a portion of the
goods, being perishable, in December, 1854. The residue of the goods were
detained, in specie, at St. Helena, by the Court. As soon as the proceedings at
St. Helena were known in England, notice of abandonment was given to the
underwriters on 13th December, 1854, being in due time. At that time the
decree of the Court at St. Helena was not known in England. An appeal to the
Queen in council against this decree was lodged on 31st January, 1855. Pending
the appeal, possession of such of the goods as remained in specie at St. Helena
could not be obtained until December, 1856; and then only on the terms of
2 EL. & EI. 159.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0152&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)