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/ssactsengr0411 and id is 1 raw text is: THE CONFERENZRATH 96
him an opportunity of separating the ship from the cargo, for the purpose of giving
a new claim on the property.
The Court assented to these observations, and rejected the claim altogether for
the ship and cargo.
[362] THE CONFERENZRATH -(Baur). Dec. 18, 1806.-Orders, 24th June
1803, as to the colonial trade-Return to the country of the ship-Hainburgh
identified with Altona for the purposes of this order.
[S. C. 1 Eng. Pr. Cas. 571.]
This was a case of a Danish vessel belonging to Altona, which had sailed from
Altona to Monte Video, and was captured on a return voyage to Hamburgh, pro-
vided that port should not be under blockade, with an alternate destination to
Frederickstadt.
Judgment-Sir W. Scott: This is clearly a Danish vessel. No objection has
been raised against the property of the ship ; but with respect to the cargo it is
objected that as there appears to have been no Spanish licence authorising these
persons to trade at Monte Video, it is reasonable to infer that the cargo must belong
to Spanish merchants. But I think there is enough to be collected from the papers
to shew that persons introducing a cargo would be received, and allowed to export
a cargo in return. It appears that the outward cargo produced more than was in-
vested in the return cargo, and that some part of the money was left in that
country. If the commerce of that place had been so far open, that the parties would
be at liberty to engage in subsequent adventures, it was not unnatural that the
surplus of their funds should be left for another voyage. I am of opinion, there-
fore, that these objections are not sufficient to weigh against the general current of
evidence which represents the cargo to belong to merchants of Hamburgh ; and I
shall, on that part of the case, have no hesitation in pronouncing it to be Hamburgh
property.
[363] But two questions of law are raised.-It is objected that the ship had been
guilty of a breach of blockade on the outward voyage, and the terms of the Order in
Council of the present war do impose that limitation on the liberty of commerce to
the colonies of the enemy (24th June 1803). With respect to the intention of the
parties, it does appear from the charter-party, that there was a design to violate the
blockade ; but though there may have been the mens rea, the parties have had the
benefit of extrinsic circumstances turning out in their favour. The blockade was
raised before the vessel sailed ; so that there is not the corpus delicti existing that
would be necessary also to draw upon thema the penalties of the law.
The second objection is, that the ship had gone to Buenos Ayres and had taken a
cargo, with an intention of returning, according to the charter-party, to Hamburgh ;
and it was only in the event of the renewal of the blockade that the ship was to go
to Frederickstadt. It is therefore a Hamburgh cargo on board a Danish ship, and
going not to a port of the country to which the ship belonged, but to Hamburgh. It
is true that the rule has been laid down with more precision, and with greater strict-
ness in this war than in the last. It is now restricted to the country of the ship,
whereas the former rule extended to the country of the owner of the cargo also. It
is not in my power, neither is it my inclination, to relax the strictness of the latter
rule by interpretation. But when ports are so nearly conjoined as Hamburgh and
Altona, not merely byjuxta-position only, but by the closest connections of familiarity
and commercial intercourse; when they use one common exchange, and when the
merchants have their country houses on each side of the river [364] indifferently,
it would be pressing the rule too harshly on the merchants of Hamburgh to hold
that they should not be at liberty to enjoy the convenience which Altona affords for
all the purposes of commerce. I am rather disposed to consider them, as far as the
reasonable construction of this Order is concerned, as the same port. I shall there-
fore admit the claim, and pronounce this property to be Hamburgh property.
THE ROLLA -(Coffin, Master). June 3, 1807.-Blockade-Imposed by a com-
mander-Mode of notification, through the governor of the enemy's port-
Effect of remission in the mode of carrying it into execution, if proved, &c. Case
of exit.
[S. C. 1 Eng. Pr. Cas. 573. Referred to, Phillips v. Eyre, 1870, L. R. 6 Q. B. 24.]
963
6 C. ROB. 862.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0411&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)