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/ssactsengr0380 and id is 1 raw text is: THE FAVOURITE
of time, is allowed in these Courts, this Court will not be too precise in holding the
parties strictly to their time of appeal ; nor will it look with scrupulous accuracy
to the phraseology and style of their minutes, nor to the common errors, in which
both the parties and the practitioners appear to have been involved.
In the present case the Judge pronounces, that there is no probable cause of
seizure, and that the ship and cargo ought to be restored. The seizor immediately
appeals (as he says) ; and the Judge upon that abstains from proceeding any farther,
makes no order as to costs, but leaves the sentence in this suspensive state, implying
that costs ought to be given, but not giving any costs expressly; certainly the
appeal or protestation, or whatever it is to be called, of the seizor, needed not to
have prevented the Judge from unfolding his sentence, and expressing in terms
what it is evidently intended to imply. It could hardly have been deemed a new
act, if he had gone on to infer his conclusion that costs ought to be given against
the seizor ; however he does not do this, and the matter remains in this suspended
state for another year and a half ; all parties appearing to stand aghast and motionless,
the party that had [231] appealed not prosecuting his appeal ; the party appellate
not urging the prosecution of that appeal, nor the Court directing any effectual
steps to be taken for the purpose. Finally, the party which had obtained this half
sentence comes before the Court, and prays a determination upon the matter of
costs and damages ; then the Court makes the direct judicial declaration, that costs
and damages are due. The appeal from this sentence, and likewise from the other,
is regularly pursued. Security is required, and is given for the effectual prosecution
of it; and it seems to have been the common understanding of all parties, that
the whole merits of the case were devolved to the judgment of the superior Court.
Indeed the absolute impossibility of considering and determining with any
degree of justice, the matter of the last sentence taken separately from the other,
proves in the most decisive manner the indissoluble connection that subsists between
them, and the absolute necessity of considering them in conjunction.
In my view of the latter sentence, it is nothing else than a mere distinct verbal
explication of what is implied in the first; unless the first is examined, it is im-
possible to examine, to any effect of justice, the second; and the parties having
admitted that they are forced to appear to the appeal upon the second, which decrees
costs, I think that they are ex necessitate rei bound to appear likewise to the appeal
upon the first, which decides that there is no just or probable cause of seizure.
Note.-An important question having lately occurred in the case of The
Fabius, respecting the extent of the Vice Admiralty jurisdiction in revenue
matters, it will be brought forward in this number, without regard to the regular
order of dates.
[232] (INSTANCE COURT.)
TuE FAVOURITE -(Nicholas de Jersey, late Master). Nov. 22, 1799.-Mate
becoming master, by capture of former master, allowed to sue for wages as mate
through the whole time.
This was a case on petition for wages, and sundry other charges, on the part of
Joseph Grout, formerly mate, and late master of the vessel, against the proceeds of
the ship Favourite, an American ship, which had been proceeded against by a
primum decretum on the part of -- Carver of Gosport, and Torlades and Company
of Lisbon, holders of bottomree bonds, and sold by a decree of this Court, bearing
date 17th day of June 1799.
The history of the vessel as it was detailed in the several proceedings before the
Court was :-That in the month of April 1797, the above vessel belonging to S.
Lewis of Boston, and commanded by Nicholas de Jersey, master, sailed with a cargo
of flour from Havre to Brest; and being taken as prize by a British cruiser, and
brought to Portsmouth, was restored by a sentence of the Court of Admiralty;
that she was then repaired, refitted, and revictualled, on money taken on bottomree,
September 28th, 1797, of - Carver of Portsmouth, to the amount of £1283, 17s. 8d.,
and sailed to London in ballast, where it was determined to proceed with the ship
to St. Ube's, there to load a cargo of salt for Charlestown ; that she went to St.
Ube's, and having sailed laden with a cargo of salt, was forced into Lisbon, in distress,
where a further sum of £100 was taken up on bottomree, from the house [233] of
Torlades and Company ; that the vessel then proceeded to Charlestown, but that
299
2 0. ROB. 2n1.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0380&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)