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/ssactsengr0492 and id is 1 raw text is: to its penal provisions. Nine years, however, had intervened, during which period
this person was transferred to innocent owners ; and the libel now charges only
the offence of illegal exportation, after the time allowed for ordinary prosecutions had
elapsed. The 47th section of 5 G. IV, c. 113, fixes the term of five years for ordinary
prosecutions ; but appears to be indefinitely retrospective as to slaves which have
been, or shall at any time have been illegally imported. This is not a case of that
kind, according to the precise terms of that section in their just and natural con-
struction. The Crown Officers have not advised an appearance in support of the
sentence, and have thereby virtually expressed their opinion that the sentence of
the Court below cannot be supported.
[273] The appeal has been prosecuted in pcvnam, there being no one to defend the
sentence, and impress on my mind any other construction of the statute than what
I have assigned to it: I feel myself bound, therefore, to reverse the judgment
but I shall not allow the costs of the appeal.
Two SLAVES. Dec. 1, 1828.-Where, on a voyage to North Carolina from Roseau
(a port in Dominica to which the vessel belonged), the master, discovering two
slaves, from Dominica, on board, landed and delivered them up at St. Kitt's,
the nearest British port he could reach, such an importation was not held to
amount to a forfeiture under stat. 5 G. IV, c. 113; and the superior Court, upon
an appeal on behalf of the Crown, holding that the master was ignorant of the
slaves being on board, and that the importation arose from unavoidable neces-
sity, declined to disturb the sentence, though it was undefended on the part of
the owners.
This was an appeal from the Vice-Admiralty Court of St. Christopher's. Two
slaves, Betsey Johnston and Emma Dowdy, were alleged to have been seized in the
port of Basseterre by the searcher of H.M. customs, and were proceeded against
under the provisions of the 5 G. 4, c. 113, s. 2, as forfeited by reason of an unlawful
importation into that island, in a schooner called the Selina.
In an affidavit of William Baker, the master of the schooner, it was stated, that
on the evening of the day following that on which he sailed from Roseau, in the
island of Dominica, to which port the schooner belonged, bound for Wilmington in
North Carolina, he was informed by one of his crew that there were two women'
concealed in the forecastle ; that he immediately sent for them, and discovered that
they were slaves belonging to Dominica ; that he then endeavoured to reach the
island of Montserrat, but without effect, as the wind was contrary ; and he worked
into St. Kitt's, being the nearest British port he Could make, [274] where he brought
the slaves before a magistrate who committed them to jail. This affidavit and
two certificates of registration, transmitted from Dominica, for the purpose of
identifying the slaves, were allowed to be filed, and received in lieu of a regular claim
being interposed. The Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court having declined to pro-
nounce the slaves forfeited, an appeal was prosecuted to this Court ; and, after the
usual proceedings, in pwonam, for want of an appearance on the part of the owners,
the King's Advocate prayed that the sentence should be reversed.
Judgment-Sir Christopher Robinson : The offence charged has arisen solely out
of the deception practised on the master of the vessel, who appears to have been
entirely ignorant that these persons were on board ; and he is not contradicted or
impeached in any way as to the credit of his statement, and the fairness of his conduct
in the whole transaction. It is, therefore, a case of unavoidable necessity, in which
the slaves, being in custody, might, I conceive, have been properly delivered to their
respective owners, and ought not to have been made the subject of proceedings for
forfeiture under the abolition Act. On.these grounds I concur in the judgment of
the Court below, and think that the case is not brought within the provisions of the
Act. The Court, therefore, declines to disturb the sentence, notwithstanding the
appeal is undefended on the part of the owners.
[275] MARGARET -(Tomison). July 25, 1829.-The Court declined to pro-
nounce forfeited a bond given for the safe return of a vessel to a particular port
of this kingdom, the vessel having been carried in distress into another port,
and there arrested in suits of salvage and of wages, holding, that while the vessel
244
TWO SLAVES
2 HA.GG. 273.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0492&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)