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/ssactsengr0424 and id is 1 raw text is: instance, to know whether he should not follow that, although it appears, from
the sequel, that he pursued the other vessel, in pursuance of the direction of his
superior officer. It is clear that Captain Lock applied to Captain Smith as to his
senior officer, and this not merely as to a person of greater experience, but as to a
person clothed with an authority which he was bound to obey. The answer [372]
which is given by Captain Smith is undoubtedly civil in its terms, but it prescribes
a course of duty, and cannot but be considered as equivalent to a command. I
think you had better go after the other. We speak so, sometimes, to a servant,
meaning, however at the same time, to command him to do the thing which we
desire to have done. It is quite clear, in this instance, that Captain Lock understood
the answer of Captain Smith as a command; for he immediately conforms to his
directions, though contrary to his own opinion; and, in consequence of this con-
formity, the capture was ultimately effected by him; the Beagle, in the mean-
time, continuing to chase the other vessel, under the hope that the capture of both
might have been effected. The two ships had associated for the purpose of making
the capture of both vessels, and the capture of one of them, the prize in question,
was made by the Rover, in consequence of directions given by the senior officer
commanding the Beagle, and a distribution of the force pursuant to those
directions. I consider it to be a clear rule of law, that ships engaged in a joint
enterprise of this kind, and acting under the orders of the same superior officer,
are entitled to share in each others prizes ; and it is certainly for the benefit of the
public service that a rule of this sort should prevail, in order that the public force
of the state may be distributed so as to produce the greatest possible advantage
to the country, and the greatest possible annoyance to the enemy. I am of opinion
therefore, that the Beagle is entitled to share in the prize.
[373] FRIENDSHIP -(Cox). February 11, 1814.-If the claimant distinctly
apprehended the ground of proceeding, as well as of seizure, this Court will
not permit him to take advantage of informalities in the proceedings before
the Court of Vice-Admiralty from which the case is appealed.
This was an appeal from a sentence of the Vice-Admiralty Court at Tortola,
condemning this ship and cargo. The vessel sailed on the 25th of May 1812, from
Martinique, then in British possession, with a cargo of sugar, the produce of that
island, and was captured on the 29th of the same month, by His Majesty's sloop
Dominica, at a short distance from Porto Rico, to which place she was steering
at the time of capture.
Judgment-Sir W. Scott: It is admitted that this ship was going into the Spanish
island of Porto Rico, with a cargo of sugar, laden at Martinique, then become a
British colony, and subject of course to the British laws of revenue, and I take it
to be an admitted maxim in law that when a foreign colony becomes a British
colony the British laws of revenue immediately attach, though she was ostensibly
consigned to Nova Scotia, on account of the laders resident at Martinique. She
was taken on the 29th of May 1812, by His Majesty's sloop Dominica, under
the command of Captain Hockings, and upon the ground, as he asserts in an affidavit
bringing in the ship's papers, of her being about to import this cargo of British
plantition produce and manufacture into the Spanish colony of Porto Rico.
I A claim on behalf of British proprietors was given the next day by the master,
alleging, in the affidavit, his intention to go to Nova Scotia, with liberty to touch
at St. Thomas's: that he was unable to fetch [374] that island, and that his reason
for going to Porto Rico was solely to procure water and provisions, being scantily
provided with those articles ; that he would have furnished himself with provisions
at Martinique, but that it was impossible, from the scarcity which prevailed there,
to procure them in that island. I observe he says nothing about any scarcity of
water there.
Nothing is clearer than that this proceeding, on both sides opens a direct question
of fact perfectly understood by both parties. The one states, expressly, the ground
of seizure ; the other expressly negatives it. There is no pretence to say, after
these documents, that the party is taken by surprise, and condemned for he knows
not what. He had been distinctly told, at the time of seizure, that the reason
assigned for it was, that he was going into Porto Rico to smuggle. He distinctly
apprehended this to be the ground of proceeding as well as seizure, for he himself
THE , FRIENDSHIP
1846
1 DODS. 372](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0424&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)