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/ssactsengr0376 and id is 1 raw text is: but of Corbeaux, or other Frenchmen; and as such I shall think myself warranted
to pronounce it subject to condemnation.
[322] THE THOMAS -(M'Quay, Master). April 25, 1799.-A monition prayed
to detain a ship coming into the port of Liverpool, for adjudication, on the claim
of the former British owner, suggesting that she had been a slave ship, seized
by the slaves, retaken by a British frigate, and illegally condemned, under a
decree of an authorised Court of Admiralty at St. Domingo ; and under such
condemnation sold to the present holder.
This was a British slave ship seized by the slaves on board, and afterwards retaken
by an English frigate the Thames, Captain Lukyn. She was carried to St. Domingo
and there condemned under-a decree of a pretended Admiralty Prize Court, erected
there without proper authority, and sold. The ship having since come into the
port of Liverpool, an application was now made on the part of Mr. Clarke of Liver-
pool, the former owner, for a warrant to detain her.
Against the petition, the King's Advocate contended, that although the Admiralty
Court of St. Domingo was not legally constituted, and the sentence was consequently
irregular, yet since the proceedings of sale had been so public, the Court would not
take the vessel out of the hands of a bond fide purchaser, especially as Captain Lukyn
had received only one-eighth as salvage, leaving the rest in the hands of the marshal
of the Court of St. Domingo.
Court.-This is a public purchase without doubt, but under a Court which had
no jurisdiction. The proceedings, therefore, are not only irregular, but null and void.
It concerned the purchaser to look to that as well as the seller. The question is,
whether I shall send the purchaser or the original owner to the captor ? for I will not
send either of them to hunt after the pretended marshal of this pretended court.
What is proposed by the monition ?
[It was answered : to keep the ship in the custody of the Court during the suit.]
[323] She will then be unemployed. I think it will be better for the present
holder of the vessel to give bail. I shall grant a monition to that effect ; and with
respect to Captain Lukyn, I shall allow him a reasonable time to extend his protest,
and then to defend himself. The chief difficulty will be with the ulterior part of
the case : what is to be done for the present holders, if it shall appear that they have
purchased for a fair consideration.
April 15, 1801.-This ship was decreed to be restored to the former British
owner, paying salvage, as in a case of recapture.-The circumstances attending
the recapture were of a particular nature, and will require to be fully stated as a
distinct Case in a future Number.
THE EINGHEDEN -(Molsen, Master). April 30, 1799.-A case on farther proof
-restored.
This was a case of farther proof respecting a cargo of deal planks, and unwrought
iron, taken on board a Danish vessel, on a voyage from Riga to Leghorn.
Judgment-Sir W. Scott: This was a Danish ship laden with unwrought iron and
planks, commodities, which by compact between Denmark and this country are not
contraband. This is a very material circumstance in the case. It is besides of'
great consequence, as to the proof of ownership, that both the master and the mate,
in that part of their depositions which respected the property, denied a French
interest. But doubts have arisen on the question of destination, whether it was to
Leghorn or to a French port. Had the cargo [324] been contraband, this would have
been a most material inquiry. It is on the 12th interrogatory that the doubt first
arises: in answer to which the master says, the cargo was consigned to merchants
at Leghorn, whose names he does not recollect, but they appear by the ship's
papers as undoubtedly they do; but he adds, the destination was either to
Leghorn, or to some port of France : as he should think proper. Afterwards, to
another interrogatory he speaks more particularly, and says, the ship was
chartered for Leghorn ; but directions were given to him to go to Brest, or
to any port in the Bay of Biscay. This is not very consistent with his other
account. He says besides, that if he went to France, he was to receive five
per cent. But by accepting such an offer, he discredited himself ; for by
deviating from his charter-party, he would expose the property of his owner
192
TIRE ' 9 THOMAS
10C. ROB. 322.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0376&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)