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/ssactsengr0375 and id is 1 raw text is: THE ADRIAN A
[313] THE ADRANA -(Fitzpatrick, Master). April 23, 1799.-A case on
farther proof.
This was a case of a cargo on farther proof.
Farther proof being brought in, it was attempted to introduce affidavits on the
part of the captors, to contradict it, on a suggestion that farther proof opened the
case to both parties.
Court.-With respect to plea and proof, this is true; but I do not know that in
proof by affidavits, this Court or the Lords of Appeal have ever laid down such a
rule. I understand the rule to be, that farther proof [314] by affidavits to be ex-
hibited on the part of the captor is only admissible under the special direction of
the Court. It is a proper control over the rash or light manner with which the
claimants may attempt to pick up something like proof by affidavit : but it is not
to be exercised except on special grounds, and only with the leave of the Court.
I shall therefore hear the cause first on the proof brought in by the claimant.
Judgment-Sir W. Scott: This is a case of a cargo of wine and brandy captured
on the 30th of May 1795, on a voyage from Bourdeaux to Hamburgh.
The claim is given by Mr. Boland, stating himself to be an American; but he
is clearly not an American by birth, as the master describes him to have been born
in Ireland. Mr. Boland's own account of himself does not carry back his connection
with America beyond 1784; therefore we may be warranted to consider him as a
British-born subject, emigrating to America after the separation of the two countries.
He says, that he resided in Philadelphia from 1784 to 1794, when, having
made several shipments of America produce to France, and meaning to make others,
he thought it material to his interest to be present there, to carry on his mercantile
concerns. This is a large and very general description of his business in France.
There is no mention of particular business, such as the collecting of debts, or any-
thing specific ; nor is there anything to remove a suspicion, that his business
in France might be in a most intimate manner connected with French commerce.
He farther says, that in November [315] 1795, he went from France to the West
Indies, and afterwards to Philadelphia. But he does not specify the extent of his
visit to the West Indies, nor whether it was to a French island or not : if it were so,
there would be nothing in this visit to disconnect him from France, and he must
be considered in the same light as if he was still resident there. There is no proof
or mention of his house of trade in America, nor any circumstance pointing to a
continuance of his connection with that country, except one, collected by his counsel
from the accidental mention of another ship, coming for his account with a cargo
of rice and tobacco from America to Europe. But this might be an adventure
having its origin in France ; and at any rate it is not sufficient to support the in-
ference, that he still continued to trade as an American merchant. He says, in
August 1796, he returned to France to collect large sums owing to him ; but he
does not say, that he bad no other business than to collect his debts ; but, that
he had no other business than what related to his mercantile concerns. Nor has anyone
else who settles in the enemy's country as a merchant. What sort of an account
is this ? or in what way is it incompatible with the suspicion, that he was become a
general trader of that country ?
He does not even state an intention of returning to America. It is impossible,
therefore, to consider him as a pure American on this proof ; and if this was the
cases. The general interest in security of navigation is a point to which the Court
will likewise look in fixing the reward. It is for the general interest of commerce
that a considerable reward should be held up ; and as ships are made to pay largely
for light-houses, even where no immediate use is derived from them, from the general
convenience, that there should be permanent buildings of that sort, provided for
all occasions, although this or that ship may derive no benefit from them on this
or that particular occasion ; so on the same principle it is expedient for the security
of navigation, that persons of this description, ready on the water, and fearless of
danger, should be encouraged to go out for the assistance of vessels in distress;
and therefore that when they are to be paid at all, they should be paid liberally.
It is on these general considerations, and not merely to mete out the payment for
the exact service performed in the particular instance, that the rewards should be
apportioned in these cases ; and it is in this view that I shall always consider them.
10C. ROB. 313.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0375&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)