About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Peter Harmony and others, Claimants of the Brig Malek Adhel, v. The United States - The United States v. The Cargo of the Brig Malek Adhel U.S. 210 (1844)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0314 and id is 1 raw text is: SUPREME COURT. PETER HARMONY AND OTHERS, CLAIMANTS OF THE BRIG MALER ADHEL, v. THE UNITED STATES. THE UNITED STATES V. THE CARGO OF THE BRIG M ,Ex ADHEL. Under the act of Congress of March 3, 1819,ch. 75, (200,) to protect the commerce of the United States and punish the crime of piracy, any armed vessel may be seized and brought in, or any vessel the crew-whereof may be armed, and which shall have attempted or committed any piratical aggression, search, restraint, depredation, or seizure upon any, vessel; and such offending vessel may be condemned and sold, the proceeds whereof to be distributed between the United States and the captors, at the discretion of the court. It is no matter whether the vessel be armed for offence or defence, provided she commits the unlawful acts specified. To bring a vessel within the act it is not necessary that there should be either actual plunder or an intent to plunder- if the act be committed from hatred, or an abuse of power, or a spirit of mischief, it is sufficient. The word piratical' in the act is not to be limited in its construction o such acts as by the laws of nations are denominated piracy, but includes such as pirates are in the habit of committing. A piratical aggression, search, restraint, or seizure is as much within the act as a piratical depredation. The innocence or ignorance on the part of the owner of these prohibited acts, will not exempt the vessel from condemnation. The condemnation of the cargo is not authorized by the act of 1819. Neither does the law of nations require the condemnation of the cargo for petty offences, unless the owner thereof co-operates in, and authorizes the unlawful act. An exception exists in the enforcement of belligerent rights. Costs in the admiralty are in the sound discretibn of the court, and no appellate court should interfere with that discretion, unless under peculiar circum- stances. Although not per se the proper subject of an appeal, yet they can be taken notice of incidentally, as connected with the principal aecree. In the present case, as the innocence of the owners was established, it was proper to throw the costs upon the vessel, which was condemned, to the ex- clusion of the cargo, which was liberated. Tins case came up by appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the district of Maryland, having originated in the District Court. On or about the 30th of June, 1840, the brig Malek Adhel sailed from New York bound to Guayamas, in California, under the com- mand of Joseph Nunez. The vessel was armed with a cannon and

What Is HeinOnline?

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.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most