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/ssactsengr0435 and id is 1 raw text is: 592 THE TRELAWNEY 4 C. ROB. 221.
opinion that these two conditions have NOT been complied with, the licence itself
will be of no avail. Although the Sovereign, and those who represent him, may have
the power of permitting even the importation of enemy's property, and that by any
person whatever, I am not to presume such an intention, in either member of it,
unless the terms of the licence expressly so declare it.
Then how can it be said, that Mr. Cunningham is the importer in this case ? I
do not see how he can be so described : he charters a vessel, and sends her to the
Isle of Teneriffe, to bring from thence a cargo, for the account of Neale, a merchant
in America. The vessel arrives at Teneriffe, where there was an agent of Mr.
Cunningham, who appears, with the assistance of C-, a merchant of the island,
to have transacted the business with Cullen and Co. of [221] Seville. The charter-
party was in the course of being fulfilled, and a cargo had been put on board, con-
signed to Cunningham, but on account and risk nominally of Mr. Neale. The whole
of this transfer was afterwards rescinded. The shippers take alarm, and wish to
give a different shape to the business. They consent to let the cargo go to Belfast,
but not to the hands of Cunningham, in the first instance, nor for the account of Neale.
It is described to be going for their order, and consigned to the house of Cowper
Bolland and Co. in London, who were to suffer it to go on to Cunningham, if they
were satisfied for the payment. By these means the shippers calculated to protect
themselves against danger of two kinds. They were not personally acquainted
with Cunningham : they hoped therefore to guarantee themselves against any risk
from that quarter, and also against the insolvency of Neale. In doing so, they have,
unfortunately for themselves, incurred another danger which they did not foresee,
viz. that of rendering this property liable to condemnation, as property still vested
in them, subjects of a State in hostility with this country. The shippers, having the
goods in their power, and in their own port, refuse to let them go, unless under an
alteration of the bill of lading.-It is said that Cunningham's agent consented that
they should be so shipped; I do not exactly see how that can vary the case; if it was
a voluntary offer on the part of the agent, that would not alter it; but it rather
seems, that it was not voluntary, but forced upon him, under the power which the
shippers retained over the goods. It is true, the vessel was coming to Belfast ; but
are the goods consigned to Mr. Cun-[222]-ningham ? By no means-he has no
legal connection whatever with them, he had no document by which he could demand
possession, or describe himself as the legal importer. He might perhaps consider
himself to be the importer, but the question is, whether he can, in law, be so con-
sidered. Suppose the ship had arrived, and that Mr. Cunningham had, in the mean-
time, been involved in difficulties, would not Bolland and Cowper have stopped
these goods ? In what way could Mr. Cunningham have demanded them ? They
would have been still the goods of Cullen, and in his own possession, for the possession
of Bolland and Co. his agents, would be considered as his own. If I send money to
a banker, my banker's possession is my possession. To say that Bolland and Co.
are also the agents and correspondents of Cunningham makes no difference, because
the goods were not sent to them in that capacity. They were the correspondents of
both parties ; but they were to act in this instance for the security of the shippers.
It is impossible to distinguish this case from other cases, in which the goods being
still under the dominion of the shipper, and subject to his order, the property has
been held in this Court not to be legally changed. I cannot but be of opinion that
this cargo continued still the property of the shippers, that Mr. Cunningham would
not be legally answerable for the payment, and that in condemning these goods, I
condemn nothing but what is to be legally considered as Spanish property.
[223] THE TRELAWNEY -(Lake, Master). March 19, 1802.-Salvage of a new
species.-Rescue of a slave-ship from insurgent slaves, on the coast of Africa,
by another slave-ship.-One-tenth given.
(Instance Court.)
This was a case of salvage, on behalf of the Lord Nelson slave-ship, for the
recovery of the Trelawney, another slave-ship, on the coast of Africa, from some
insurgent slaves, who had dispossessed the master and crew, and sent them on shore.
On the part of the owners of the Trelawney, against whom the monition had
been granted [vide 3 C. Rob. 216] Arnold stated,-that the representation which
was now before the Court was an ex parte representation only. That the master of](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0435&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)