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/ssactsengr0317 and id is 1 raw text is: BURON V. DENMAN
ought to have been ascertained, either by the award or by taxation, the residue of the
costs of the reference ought to have been ascertained in one of these ways, before
the amount payable by the defendant could be ascertained. All the costs of both sides,
as well as the costs of and recompense to the arbitrators, are to be divided by the
terms of this award ; for the award is not that each party is to pay his own costs of
the reference, and one moiety of those of the arbitrators, but one moiety of all brought
into hotchpot; so that whether the defendant would have anything to pay, or how
much, to the plaintiff, could not be ascertained until then.
Rule discharged.
[167] TRIAL AT BAR. BEFORE PARKE, B., ALDERSON, B., ROLFE, B., AND
PLATT, B.
BURON v. DENAMAN, ESQ. Feb. 14, 15, & 16, 1848.-The defendant, a naval com-
mander, stationed on the coast of Africa, with instructions to suppress the slave
trade, was requested by the Governor of Sierra Leone to obtain the liberation of
two British subjects detained as slaves at the Gallinas by the son of the King of
that country, and in effecting that object to use force, if necessary. He accord-
ingly proceeded to the Gallinas with an armed force, and, having landed at
Dombocorro, took military possession of a barracoon belonging to the plaintiff,
who was a Spaniard, carrying on the slave trade at the Gallinas. He then com-
municated with the king of the country, and the two British subjects having been
released, the defendant concluded a treaty for the abolition of the slave trade in
that country. In execution of this treaty, the defendant fired the barracoons of
the plaintiff, and carried away his slaves to Sierra Leone, where they were
liberated. Some of the plaintiff's goods, used in the slave traffic, were claimed
by the king as forfeited, and delivered up to him ; other goods were destroyed
These proceedings having been communicated to the Lords of the Admiralty,
and the Secretaries of State for the foreign and colonial departments, they respec-
tively, by letter, adopted and ratified the act of the defendant: Held, first, that
the plaintiff had a property in his slaves, and might maintain trespass for their
seizure, the slave trade not being piratical by the law of nations, and it not
appearing that Spain had passed any law abolishing the slave trade pursuant to
the treaty embodied in the 6 & 7 'Will. 4, c. 6.-Secondly, that the ratification
of the defendant's act by the ministers of state was equivalent to a prior command,
and rendered it an act of state, for which the Crown was alone responsible,
(Parke, B., dubitante): and that such defence was open under the general
issue.
[Discussed and applied, Doss v. Secretary of State for India, 1875, L. R. 19 Eq. 509.
Applied, Phillips v. Eyre, 1870, L. R. 6 Q. B. 24 ; Mill v. Hawker, 1874, L. R. 9 Ex.
326: affirmed, L. R. 10 Ex. 92. Not applied, liracis v. Carr, 1900, 82 L. T. 698:
reversed, 85 L. T. 144. Adopted, London Corporation v. Cox, 1867, L. R. 2 H. L.
262. Referred to, Dixon v. Farrer, 1886, 18 Q. B. D. 45; 6 Asp. N. C. 52.]
Trespass. The first count of the declaration stated, that the plaintiff, during all
or any of the time in that count mentioned, was not a subject of the Sovereign of
these realms, and so not being such subject as aforesaid, heretofore, to wit, on &c., was
lawfully possessed of certain slaves, goods, chattels, effects, &c., then being without
the dominions of the Sovereign of these realms, (that is to say), of divers, to wit, 4000
slaves, of great value, to wit, of the value of £100,000, and of divers goods, chattels,
effects, (that is to say), &e., and continued so possessed until the defendant afterwards,
and whilst the said slaves, goods, chattels, effects, &c. were so respectively without the
dominions aforesaid, and whilst the plaintiff was so possessed and was not subject as
aforesaid, to wit, on &c., with force and arms, seized, took, and carried Away the said
slaves, goods, chattels, effects, &c., whereby the same became and were wholly lost to
the plaintiff. The second [168] count stated, that the defendant, on &e., with force
and arms, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, burnt, damaged, and destroyed
divers other goods, chattels, and effects of the plaintiff, &c.
The defendant pleaded numerous pleas, of which the following only are material
for the present questions :-
450
2 :EX. 167/](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0317&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)