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/ssactsengr0407 and id is 1 raw text is: were condemned for a breach of the revenue laws. It appears that the ship had
been seized at Goree by the garrison of that place, who proceeded to take some
short depositions, which were transmitted to this Court, and on which condemna-
tion has since passed to the Crown, as of a prize taken by non-commissioned persons.
The ship and cargo were sold on the coast of Africa to the present claimant, who
sent them to [259] the British market at Barbadoes. On their arrival, the Custom-
house officer, looking only to the fact of importation, proceeded against them for
a breach of the revenue laws, and -on that ground they have been condemned, in
the usual proportions, to the Crown, the governor, and the actual seizor.
On appeal, the sentence of the Court below is not sustained on the part of the
Crown ; but an appearance has been given for the governor and the seizor. The
offence alleged to have been committed against the revenue, is stated to arise from
an importation, contrary to the 26th (c. 60) and 39th (c. 80, s. 39) of His present
Majesty which prohibits the importation of slaves, except in ships fitted out in
London, Liverpool, and Bristol. After some fluctuation of opinion, I am disposed
to reverse the sentence of the Court below; though, at the same time, I think, that
the judge acted perfectly right on the facts which were in evidence before him.
The ship and cargo were seized by the garrison of Goree as prize. The captors
could not bring them in person to adjudication, for they could not move from their
station; and it was impossible that such a cargo could find a market anywhere but
in the West Indies. The more regular mode of proceeding would have been for
those who purchased, and who may have been considered to have acted as agents
of the captors, to have carried the vessel and cargo to Barbadoes as prize for adjudica-
tion. If they had gone there for that purpose, no question could have arisen respect-
ing them. Because it being the case of a prize ship, neither the Navigation Act
(sect. 15) not the Middle Passage Act would, in their ordinary operation, apply to it.
But when [260] the cause came on before the Court below, the vessel was in the hands
of other persons than the captors, and no proof could be afforded that any proceed-
ings of prize had anywhere been instituted.
It now appears from the records of this Court, that there has been a condemna-
tion (Sept. 10, 1804) regularly obtained in this Court, upon the depositions and
ship-papers sent here, and upon the claim given for the ship and cargo as the property
of sundry persons of Hamburgh, and therefore there is no longer any ground to
impute fraudulent intention, or any culpable irregularity to the captors ; although
they might, perhaps, have proceeded in a more convenient manner. The intention
of bringing the case to adjudication in this Court, could not be known to the judge
below, except by the assertion of the parties, on which alone he could not judicially
depend. He was, therefore, fully justified in pronouncing the sentence which has
passed.
But in the way in which I now consider the transaction, as a conversion, preced-
ing the condemnation indeed, but rendered absolutely necessary for the purpose of
bringing this particular cargo to its proper use ; seeing that everything has been
done innocently, and without fraud, I am of opinion that these goods are to be
considered as prize goods, within the protection of the law ; and that there has been
no importation in contravention of the Acts relied on, which can properly be deemed
a violation of the law ; I shall therefore decree the property to be restored to the
claimants (b) on payment of the full expenses which the seizor has incurred.
[261] L'AMITIE -(Villeneuve). Feb. 21, 1806.-Joint capture.-Claim on
the part of privateers to share with King's ships, on what terms maintainable.
[S. C. 1 Eng. Pr. Cas. 551.]
This was a case of joint capture on the claims of two privateers, the Lark
and General Coote, to share in the prize made by His Majesty's ship Gannet.
In support of the claim of joint capture, Lawrence and Swabey.-This is a claim
advanced by two privateers, who were of force and size (a) sufficient to have effected
(b) The ship and cargo of 33 slaves were claimed for Mr. Powel, of Liverpool, and
6 slaves for an officer of the garrison at Goree.
(a) The force of the several vessels was, the Gannet, 16 guns, 85 men ; the
Lark, 36 tons, 4 three-pounders, 14 men ; the General Coote, 48 tons, 8 three
and six-pounders, 26 men.-The prize 2 long four-pounders, 14 men.
924
66 L'AMITIE
6 0. ROB. 259.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0407&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)