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/ssactsengr0433 and id is 1 raw text is: officer's interest in seizures is expressly recognised ; long anterior to the present
transaction, on the 12th of October 1764, an order issued, in which the interest of
flag officers is directly recognised and established; and another, subsequent to
this capture, dated on the 14th of October 1816, in which a similar attention is paid
to the interests of that officer. It is, therefore, not to be asserted that the Crown
is either a stranger to his merits, [419] or unfavourably disposed towards them in
matters of seizure, and that he is to be excluded wherever he is not expressly intro-
duced. He is here introduced by a direct reference to an authority which expressly
designates him, and no ground of exclusion is shewn. I shall therefore pronounce,
that Sir George Cockburn is entitled to a distributive share of an eighth part of the
bounty or consideration money given for the slaves ; and I direct the expenses on
both sides to be paid out of this money before the distribution takes place.
[420] FRANCES of Leith-(Syme). April 1, 1820.-The Court will not interfere
to give possession of a ship's register to a person whose title to be considered
as registered owner is subject to doubt.
[Followed, The Valiant, 1839, 1 W. Rob. 66.]
This ship was arrested in November 1819, in a cause of possession, civil and
maritime, at the instance of Walter Ferguson Syme of Leith, and Anthony Ferguson
otherwise Syme, widow, of the same place, alleging themselves to be the owners of
three-fourth parts or shares thereof. The usual defaults having been granted, the
judge, on the 7th of December, decreed possession of the ship to them, as having
the majority of interests ; and on the same day, at their petition, also decreed a
monition against John Pirie of London, merchant, to deliver up the ship's register.
On the 22d of- February 1820, Mr. Pirie brought in the certificate of registry, but
objected to its being delivered out to the parties. An act on petition was entered
into, supported by affidavits and documents, the substance of which is stated in
the judgment of the Court.
Judgment-Sir W. Scott: This cause commenced by a warrant taken out at the
instance of the two Syme's, mother and son, as owners of three-fourths of this ship,
in a cause of possession, civil and maritime ; and it has been argued, that this must
have been done in ill faith, for the purpose of concealing the real nature of [421]
the suit from the party against whom it was brought, and likewise from the Court
itself, which, it is said, would not have entertained it if brought in a direct form.
It is asserted to have had the effect of blinding the adverse party, who knew nothing
of the existence of this suit till a considerable time after its institution, when its
real nature was disclosed in its progress by a personal notice. It does not appear
to me that this charge of fraud is well founded,-for though the suit certainly takes
its rise, as a suit of possession in a case where the party seeking possession was
already in possession as actual master, yet the real object of it was sufficiently
proclaimed by the affidavit on which the warrant issued, which describes the party
as master in possession, demanding only the restitution of the register. Neither
do I see why the object might not have been more directly sought, by an original
proceeding of a monition, to obtain the certificate of registry. It is very true, that
the late statutes (28 G. 3, c. 34; 34 G. 3, c. 68) do empower justices of the peace to
compel the delivery of such an instrument, only in cases differing from the present.
But these statutes have nothing to do with the Admiralty jurisdiction upon these
matters. If the Admiralty had no jurisdiction but what it derives from these
statutes, it has no jurisdiction at all upon such subjects ; for they do not at all
refer to the jurisdiction of that Court-they merely give new powers in particular
cases to justices of peace. The jurisdiction of the Admiralty (if it exists) is of an
older date, and of larger extent. We know that it is not uncommon for parties,
after applications to the justices without effect, to resort to [422] this Court for its
monition. This Court would certainly not have hesitated to go the length of granting
its monition, to shew cause why the register should not be restored. Why that
short and direct course was not pursued, I am unable to say ; but I see no reason
to suppose, that the present course was not rather the effect of this apprehension
than of fraud ; and if it was really the fact, that the other party was ignorant of
the dependence of any such suit for a length of time, I think it must have been the
effect of a strange casualty, rather than anything else that a part-owner and likewise
the ship's broker, living in London, should have continued in ignorance for many
THE FRANCES
1533
2 DODS. 419.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0433&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)