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/ssactsengr0330 and id is 1 raw text is: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. SILLEM
10. When a new trial is granted on the ground that the verdict was against
evidence, the costs of the first trial shall abide the event, unless the Court shall
otherwise order.
11. Upon motions founded upon affidavits, it shall be lawful for either party, with
leave of the Court, or a Judge, to make affidavits, in answer to the affidavits of the
opposite party, upon any new matter arising out of such affidavits, subject to all such
rules as shall hereafter be made respecting such affidavits.
12. Notice of appeal shall be a stay of execution, provided, that within eight days
after the decision complained of, or before execution delivered to the sheriff, bail to
pay the sum recovered, and costs, or to pay costs when adjudged, be given in like
manner and to the same amount as bail in error is required to be given under the
rules of this Court made on the 22nd day of June, 1860, or as near thereto as may be
applicable; provided that such bail shall not be necessary to stay execution in cases
where the appellant is the Crown, the Attorney General on behalf of the Crown, or
the Prince of Wales, or the Duke of Cornwall, for the time being.
The foregoing Rules shall come into operation and take effect forthwith, and apply
to every cause, matter, and proceeding now pending.
FRED. POLLOCK. W. F. CHANNELL.
G. BRAMWELL. G. PIGOTT.
Dated the 4th day of November, A.D. 186.
[431] THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. SILLEM AND OTthERS. Nov. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
23, 1863-The building, in pursuance of a contract, with intention to sell and
deliver to a belligerent power, the hull of a vessel suitable for war, but unarmed,
and not equipped, furnished, or fitted out with, anything which enables her to
cruize or commit hostilities, or do any warlike act whatever, is not a violation of
the Foreign Enlistment Act, 59 Geo. 3, c. 69.-The equipment forbidden by the
statute is an equipment of such a warlike character as enables the ship on leaving
a port in this kingdom to cruize or commit hostilities: Per Pollock, C. B., and
Bramwell, B.-If the character of the equipment is doubtful, it may be explained
by evidence of the intent of the parties: Per Channell, B.-The Act includes a
case where the equipment is such that although the ship when it leaves a port in
this kingdom is not in a condition at once to commit hostilities, is yet capable of
being used for war, and the intent is clear that it is to be used for war: Per
Channell, B.-Any act of equipping, furnishing, or fitting out, done to the hull
or vessel, of whatever nature or character that act may be, if done with the
prohibited intent, is within the language, and also within the spirit of the statute:
Per Pigott, B.-On the trial of an information respecting the seizure of a vessel
in a port at Liverpool for an alleged violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act, by
equipping her for the service of a belligerent state.-Held: Per Bramwell, B.,
that a right direction would be, that if the jury were satisfied that the parties
concerned were equipping, or arming, or attempting so to do, the ship claimed,
with intent that it should be employed in the service of a foreign power to cruize
or commit hostilities against others as alleged, they should find for the Crown;
but such equipment or attempted equipment must be of a warlike character, so
that by means of it she is in a condition more or less effective to cruize or commit
hostilities; otherwise find for the claimants.-Per Channell, B. The questions
left to the jury should have been: 1st. Was there an intent on the part of
anyone having a controlling power over the vessel that she should be employed
in the service of the Confederate States to cruize or commit hostilities against
the United States? 2nd. If so, was she equipped, fitted out, or furnished in a
British port in order to be employed to cruize, &c. ? 3rd. If not equipped, was-
there any attempt to equip her in a British port in order that she should be so
employed? 4th. Or did anyone knowingly assist, &c., in such equipment in a
British port?-Per Pigott, B. The jury should have been directed to see: first,
whether the equippers, or the purchasers,' had the prohibited intent; and
secondly, whether with such intent they had done any act towards equipping,
furnishing, or fitting out the ship, beyond the mere work of building the hull of
the vessel, or had attempted or endeavoured so to do.
2 H & C. 431.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0330&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)