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/ssactsengr0400 and id is 1 raw text is: recollect who the persons are from whom the objection comes. They are British
subjects, who could have no persona standi there, and could not have been parties
to the proceedings either in the Court of Leghorn, or Paris, without stating them-
selves out of Court. It was impossible that the proceedings could be otherwise
conducted ; and, therefore, I cannot think that the absence of the parties, which
is urged as a fundamental defect, is material in such a case. It is nothing more
than what takes place here in cases of common condemnations, which do not rest
solely on the effect of the monition, but pass on a view of the evidence of the case.
The enemy proprietor is necessarily absent by operation of law, and yet the sentence
is completely valid, as well against him as against all the world.
It is said, that the Court at Leghorn is admitted, in the report of the proceedings
at Paris, to have had competent jurisdiction over the ship, and therefore that it did
not properly come before the Conseil des Prises, to have passed a sentence upon it.
The expression of the officer of the Court who drew up the report, does not, I [200]
think, amount to more than a statement of his opinion-The expression in the
original (supra, page 195) is not more than hypothetical. Leaving that out of the
question, what is the inference that we must draw from the course of the proceedings
at Paris ? The case goes on upon the evidence of all the papers, relative to the
capture, and finally that Court pronounces a sentence of condemnation on the ship,
and a sentence of restitution (see reasons as noticed supra, page 30) of the cargo.
It must be inferred, I think, from this instrument, that the Court below had exceeded
its jurisdiction ; that the superior Court was competent to entertain the question,
and that it did proceed regularly and properly, as well upon the ship, as upon the
cargo.
But another objection has been raised, which it is also necessary to consider
It is said, that the claimant having purchased under the original sentence, cannot
cure the defect of that title by a subsequent sentence, passed after many changes
of property, and when the vessel herself was no longer amenable, as a subject of
prize proceedings, to the jurisdiction of the belligerent country. I cannot accede
to that position. In our own Courts it happens unavoidably, as to ships taken
in the East Indies, that long before the case comes to adjudication, the property
may have passed to other hands. If the title is impeached before the sentence
takes place, it may be vitiated; but when a valid sentence comes, it must be
considered, as operating retroactively, so as to rehabilitate the former title. In this
case a valid sentence has confirmed the title, before any objection had been taken
to it, and that title derived from the original purchaser has been properly conveyed
to the neutral claimant. T shall therefore direct this vessel to be restored to him.
[201] THE MARIA -(Monses, Master). Nov. 20, 1805.-Blockade. Goods
shipped in the Jade having been previously sent in lighters from the blockaded
port, and under charter-party, with the ship proceeding also from the blockaded
port in ballast to take them on board. Penalty relieved in this instance by
special relaxation as to the trade of Bremen, &c.
[S. C. 1 Eng. Pr. Cas. 546.]
This was a case on the blockade of the Weser, relating to a cargo which had
been sent from Bremen in lighters to the Jade, for the purpose of being shipped
for America, under a charter-party made at Bremen. The vessel had gone from
the Weser to the Jade in ballast, and having taken on board the cargo, sailed from
thence on the 12th August, 1805, and was captured in the North Sea, 15th August.
On the part of the captors, the King's Advocate and Laurence contended-That the
cargo had been exported from Bremen on the present voyage in violation of the
blockade of the Weser; that although some relaxation had been granted to the
private coasting trade of that river, it could not be construed to extend to the
permission of foreign trade, which would in fact frustrate and defeat the whole
object of the blockade.
On the part of the claimants, Arnold and Robinson-Argued upon the nature
of the blockade, which had been imposed, rather with a view of counteracting the
effects of the possession, which the enemy had assumed of the banks of the Weser,
than with any intention of restraining the commerce of Bremen ; and contended,
that under the equitable construction which the Court would be inclined to adopt,
the circumstances of this transaction could not be held to contravene the terms
THE 44 MARIA
901
6 C. ROB. 200.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0400&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)