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/ssactsengr0195 and id is 1 raw text is: ALBOUY V. RETEMEYER [1841]
cannot have the benefit lie prays by his bill, to have a priority and account in favour
of his own mortgage, but the bill must be dismissed with costs.
The ground of our Judgment goes to dismiss the bill absolutely, for it goes upon
the foot of Kinghorn having no lien, and consequently lie had a right to come into
Court against. the estate, or the owner of the estate, whatever right he might have
against Tait or his representative.
[Mews' Dig. titBANKRUPTCY, II. 1. m.; also tit. COLONY, II. PARTICULAR COLONIES,
22. West Indies. On point as to revocable trust-deeds, see Johns v. James, 1878,
8 Ch. D. 744; Henderson v. Rothschild, 1886, 33 Ch. D. 469; In re Ashby; ex
parte, Wreford (1892), 1 Q.B. 872 ; New Prance and Garrard's Trustee v. Hunt-
ing (1897), 1 Q.B. 607; 2 Q.B. (C.A.), 19 ; Priestley v. Ellis (1897), 1 Ch. 489.]
[452] ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH GUIANA.
JAMES HILL ALBOUY,-Appellant; M. T. RETEMEYER and Others,-
Respondents * [July 1, 1841].
Abatement upon a demand for rent for the hire of slaves allowed in respect of
three, manumitted under the Slave Abolition Act, but refused for the loss
occasioned by the diminution of the hours of work of the apprenticed labourers,
the compensation for the lessee's loss of such labour being the proper subject
of a counter-claim before the Commissioners of Compensation.
The question raised by this Appeal was whether the Appellant was entitled to a
remission of rent as an, indemnity for the loss of the services of certain, slaves,
occasioned by the operation, of the Slave Abolition Act.
The Appellant was the lessee of a plantation called La Repentie, with the slaves
thereon, for a term extending to the 1st of March 1837. The Respondents were the
owners of the plantation and the slaves so leased to the Appellant.
On the 1st of August 1834, the Act for the Abolition of Slavery [3 and 4 Will. IV.
c. 73] came into operation, under the provisions of which the slaves were converted
into apprenticed labourers, and their labour limited to forty-five hours in the week
instead of fifty-four, being a dimlinution of one hour and a half per day, and
equivalent, as was alleged by the Appellant, to a sixth part of their effective labour.
In the month of January 1836, the Respondents having discoveied that three negro
women [453] attached to the plantation La Repentie were of Indian origin, and they
could not lawfully be continued apprentices by virtue of the powers conferred by the
'Act, discharged them from their apprenticeship, and thereby deprived the Appellant
of their services for the remainder of his term. The Respondents made their claim
for compensation for the slaves on the plantation, and obtained by the award of
the Commissioners the sum, of #6780 9s. 3d. The Appellant made no counter-claim
in respect of his interest in the slaves, or for the loss sustained by reason of the
manumission of the three negro women, but lie applied for a diminution of rent on
account of such loss, and was referred by the Respondents to his remedy in the
Supreme Court.
Accordingly he presented apetition to the Acting Chief Judge of the colony,
setting forth his title and the loss sustained by him, and claiming a diminution of
rent in consequence thereof ; at the same time offering to refer the matters in dispute
to arbitration.
The Acting Chief Justice proposed to allow the prayer of the petition as respected
the reference to arbitration, but the Respondents refused their assent, and com-
menced an action against the Appellant in the Supreme Court of Civil Justice for
the arrears of rent, and made and submitted their claim and demand in such action
for balance of capital and interest thereon.
* Present: Lord *Brougham, Mr. Baron Parke, Sir Herbert Jenner, and The
Right Hon. Dr. Lushington.
IIIMOORE, 462](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0195&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)