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/ssactsengr0450 and id is 1 raw text is: THE SOCIEDADE FELIZ
rendered their assistance after the Neptune was upon the sand ; and on their
behalf it was submitted, that they were in no degree implicated in the original mis-
conduct of the Atalanta. This application was opposed by the counsel for the
Neptune, upon the ground that the parties had embarked in a common action
with the Atalanta in this case, and consequently they were equally concluded
with the crew of that vessel by the judgment which had already been pronounced
by the Court.
[301] Per Curiam.-This part of the case is not without its difficulty. The first
impression upon my mind after hearing the opinion of the Trinity Masters strongly
inclined against the parties in whose behalf the present application has been made.
As regards the Atalanta, it has been most clearly established in the present instance,
that the measures adopted by her crew were grossly erroneous, and in point of fact
gave rise to the calamitous circumstances which subsequently ensued. If therefore
I was satisfied that the parties now claiming as joint salvors had any connection with
the Atalanta, and those on board her, I should hold them decidedly included in
the judgment which has been already pronounced. If their claim was founded in
any degree upon the original error of that vessel, no service which they may have
rendered afterwards, however meritoriously performed, would entitle them to derive
a benefit from the error and misconduct of the Atalanta.
What then is the evidence before the Court upon this part of the case ? Now
in looking to the pleadings and the affidavits in the cause, the facts of the case
warrant me in stating that no one of the smacks was in company with the Atalanta
when she first descried the Neptune, nor indeed until some considerable time after-
wards, when the Neptune had got upon the sand. This is quite clear from the
evidence before the Court. If, therefore, the owners and crews had thought fit to
proceed in the first instance by a separate and distinct action, they could not have
been at all affected by the misconduct of the Atalanta. The question then arises
whether they have placed themselves in a less favourable position in having adopted
the Atalanta's proceedings in this [302] cause. Upon this point I must observe,
that they can only be said so far to have adopted the proceedings of the Atalanta
that they have adhered to the case originally set up by that vessel, and have made
affidavits in its support. In what they did as salvors on board the Neptune,
they do not appear to have recognised in any degree the acts previously done on
board that ship by the crew of the Atalanta. I cannot therefore without injustice
impute to them any participation in the culpability attaching to the Atalanta,
and if I were to hold them excluded from any reward for their services upon the
simple ground that they had joined with the Atalanta in the institution of these
proceedings, I should be establishing a precedent in future cases of this kind, which
would be attended with great inconvenience to the practice of the Court, and the
interest of suitors. It is most desirable that the proceedings in these causes should
be conducted with the least possible delay and expense. This object, it is manifest,
would be entirely defeated, if, in future cases of a similar kind, where different
sets of salvors are concerned in the same service, separate actions should be brought,
and separate appearances given. Upon the whole, then, I must come to the con-
clusion, that these parties are entitled to some remuneration in the present instance,
but that remuneration must be modified under the circumstances of this case. The
value of the vessel and cargo is admitted to amount to the sum of £7530, and I think
that I shall do justice in allotting them £200 with their costs, but I shall allow no
costs to the Atalanta.
[303] THE SOCIEDADE FELIZ -(Joao de Souza. Campos). January 21, 1842.-
In cases of joint capture of slave vessels, the claim of the joint captors must,
subject to the exceptions which peculiar circumstances may suggest, be governed
by the principles adopted with respect to cases of joint capture in the Prize
Court of Admiralty. Log of the vessel claiming as joint captor not admissible
as evidence. In order to sustain the claim of the vessel asserting an interest
in the joint capture, it must be pleaded, 1st, That there was an association
and co-operation with the capturing vessel. 2ndly, That the vessel claiming
was seen by the captured slaver at the time the capture was effected. An
allegation defective in these particulars directed to be reformed.
[S. C. 1 Notes of Cas. 286; 6 Jur. 134. See further, 2 W. Rob. 155.]
E. & A. vi.-19*
585
1 W. ROB. 801.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0450&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)