About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

Madrazo v. Willes Eng. Rep. 692 (1378-1865)

handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0057 and id is 1 raw text is: authorized to make the enrolment, in the usual course of his office, could not be
supposed to have been done for any improper purpose; and that it was, therefore,
evidence of the fact of enrolment. In this case, an Act of Parliament directs that a
certificate shall be granted upon a stamp: it is the duty of the officer to keep a list
of the certificates granted. This'evidence, therefore, will be sufficient evidence, that
they were so granted. It appears to me, therefore, that the rule for a new trial must
be discharged.
Best J. It was decided in Caleraft v. Gibbs, that it is not sufficient, in such an
action as this, for a defendant to believe that the person under whose deputation he
acts has a title, but he must shew that that person had at least a colourable title;
and that being so, I think, for the reasons already given, that it was not shewn in
this case that Geast had any colourable title whatever. Assuming, however, that
that evidence raised a presumption of colourable title in Mr. Geast, I think it was
competent to rebut that presumption by the evidence given on the part of the
plaintiff, the effect of which was to destroy altogether any inference of colourable title.
I think, also, that the entries in the book produced by the clerk of the peace were
admissible evidence, without producing the originals. In this case, the entries were
in a book deposited in a public office, and are made fifty or a hundred years ago, and
the law is not so absurd as to require deputations to be produced which have been
granted so long ago. It has been contended, however, that these [353] entries are
mere evidence of the fact of an enrolment having been made. I think, however, that
they are evidence that the parties who caused the enrolments to be made exercised
rights as lords of the manor. It is most important evidence to shew, that Mr. Geast
knew that he had no title whatever; for if he consulted these documents, he must
have known that he had no title; if he did not consult them, he did not avail himself
of the means of knowledge that were in his power. I think, therefore, that this rule
should be discharged.
Rule discharged.
MADRAZO against WILLES. Monday, January 24th, 1820. A foreigner, who is not
prohibited from carrying on the slave-trade by the laws of his own country, may,
in a British Court of Justice, recover damages sustained by him in respect of the
wrongful seizure, by a British subject, of a cargo of slaves on board of a ship
then employed by him in carrying on the African slave-trade.
The declaration stated that the plaintiff was a subject of the King of Spain, and
that on the 12th of July, 1817, at Havannah, in the island of Cuba, he was lawfully
possessed of a certain brig called, &c., and continued so possessed until the commit-
ting of the trespasses after mentioned, to wit, at, &c. ; and that the said brig was, to
wit, on, &c., lawfully cleared out for a certain voyage in the slave-trade, to wit, from
Havannah to the coast of Africa, and back; and that on the 16th of January, 1818,
on the high seas, to wit, off Cape St. Paul's, on the coast of Africa, defendant, with
force and arms, seized the said brig, together with her stores, &e., and 300 slaves,
and also divers goods, &c. on board of the said brig, and kept and detained them
for a long time, aad converted and disposed of the slaves, goods, &c., to his own
use; by [354] means whereof the said brig was prevented from further prosecuting
the said voyage, and the plaintiff deprived of great gains, which would have accrued
from the slaves and goods, and from taking on board other slaves and other goods,
and from carrying them to the island of Cuba : plea, not guilty. At the trial at the
last London sittings after Michaelmas term, it appeared that the defendant, who was
a captain in the Royal Navy, had, on the 16th of January, 1818, off Cape St. Paul's,
unlawfully taken possession of the ship of the plaintiff, a Spanish merchant, which
was engaged in the slave-trade on the coast of Africa. The only question which arose
was as to the amount of damages. It occurred to the Lord Chief Justice at the trial,
that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the value of the slaves in an English
Court of Justice ; and, accordingly, he desired the jury to find their verdict separately
for each part of the damage, giving to the defendant liberty to move to reduce the
verdict to the smaller sum, in case the Court should agree with him on the point.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 21,1801., being for the deterioration
of the ship's stores and goods 30001., and for the supposed profit of the cargo of slaves
18,1801. And now,

692

MADRAZO V. WILLES

: 3 B. & ALD. 3,53.

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:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most