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/ssactsengr0425 and id is 1 raw text is: convenience that it should be so. The determinations in the case of The Expedite,
and in the case of The Ondernehming, were to this effect-that letters of agency
were as applicable to one species of interest as to the other.
So much for this part of the case, as to the applicability of the first instrument to
matters of bounty. But then comes another question, Has this power of attorney
been revoked by a subsequent instrument of the same kind ? Parties have generally
a right to revoke the appointment of their agents ; but this Court has always looked
upon a naval agent as a kind of public character, and, considering the public trust
with which [479] he is invested, if he has acted in the case, it will not be inclined to
hold his power of agency to be revoked without just cause shewn ; if there has been
misconduct, gross negligence, or embezzlement of any kind, which destroys the con-
fidence reposed in him, it would be the duty of the Court to interfere; but where
the agent has duly registered his power, and has actually intermeddled with the
business, and conducted it practically, to a considerable extent, he is not to be
removed at the mere fancy and caprice of the party by whom the appointment was
made. Now, in this case, it is perfectly clear that these parties have intermeddled
with this property. The vessel was carried into Halifax, and they did everything
that agents could do for the preservation of the property, until the Crown interfered
and put it into the hands of its own agents. Since that'time, it appears that a
memorial has been presented by Mr. Sykes, which would also have been presented
by them, but for the consideration of saving the expense. They possess, therefore,
everything that is required by the Court to shew they are in rightful possession of
the trust ; but I am further of opinion that the instrument here set up in opposition
is not even valid for the purpose of revocation. There was an instrument executed,
which was conceived to be inaccurate and insufficient, and therefore cancelled.
Another power was afterwards executed in which the words, Droits of Admiralty, are
introduced as properly descriptive of the property in question. It turns out however
that this description does not apply, because the property in question is not a Droit
of Admiralty, but a Droit of the Crown, as contradistinguished from it. It is there-
fore not very reasonable to demand at the same time that the Court should give a
strict interpretation to the words in the original power, and [480] a liberal and en-
larged one to those that occur in the second. The fact is, that the words of the
second power do not describe the species of property, that is, the subject of contest,
and therefore can have no revocatory effect upon the first. I have already said
that where parties have proceeded to the extent these persons have done, to con-
tinue the trust in the same hands is matter of great convenience : it has been the
general practice so to continue it, and the Court will not now depart from that
practice. The other parties have presented a memorial, and have advanced a sum
of money, which they must be reimbursed. I am of opinion upon the whole of the
case, that the first power of agency is perfectly good, and extends to all parts of the
property, and that it has not been revoked by any subsequent power of agency :
and therefore- I shall direct the proceeds to be paid out to Mr. Sykes and Mr. Ayre
conjointly.
HUNTER -(Rogers). April 15, 1815.-By the law of every maritime Court of
Europe, spoliation of papers not only excludes further proof, but does per se
infer condemnation ; the lenity of our code has however modified the rule to
this extent, that, if all other circumstances are clear, this circumstance alone
shall not be damnatory, particularly if the act was done by a person who has
interests of his own that might be benefited by the commission of this injurious
act.
[S. C. 2 Eng. Pr. Cas. 208. Compromised on Appeal: see The
Johanna Emilia, 1854, 1 Sp. Ecc. & Adm. 326.]
Judgment-Sir W. Scott: This ship, being an American ship, with a valuable
cargo on board, part of which has already been condemned as American property,
was captured on the 18th of March 1814, off the port of Canton, and after sailing
about for a few days, was carried to Macao, where the captain, and a person who is
described as the supercargo, were released at their own request. The captain, it
appears, made the best of his way to America, without returning to Canton, but,
non constat, what became of the supercargo ? The [481] ship and cargo were ordered
by Sir Samuel Hood, the commander on that station, to proceed to England for
E. & A. v.-44*
THE HUNTER '
1385
1 DODS. 479.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0425&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)