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/ssactsengr0104 and id is 1 raw text is: GUMBES' CASE [1834]
and April 1793, for the last payment of them was in October 1792, and the next
payment, which became due in April, was refused. Now, in order to bring this case
within the convention, the party must have suffered by a confiscation since the 1st
of January 1793, and in order to bring it within the principle of Andr6's case [2
Knapp, 365 n. *], it must be shown that she was a British subject in some sense, within
the interval between January and April 1793; but what evidence is there before us
upon which we can come to that conclusion? There may be a reasonable presump-
tion that the Countess was in England in 1794, because General Conway was ap-
pointed to the command of a British regiment in that year; but supposing that the
general had been serving with the Prince de Con(d before that time, there would
have been no pretence for saying that his wife was a British subject in any sense
during the time he was so serving.
One of these two things must be shown, either that the Countess was a natural-
born British subject, or that having been born abroad, she was domiciled in England,
and in that character entitled to the protection of a British subject at the time of
the confiscation. The fact of the confiscation of the property having taken place on
the ground that the Countess was the wife of a British subject, is not sufficient to
entitle her to an indemnity as a British subject; neither is so the circumstance that
she was, in point of fact, [368] the wife of such a subject; for a Frenchwoman
becomes in no way a British subject by marrying an Englishman ; she continues an
alien, and is not entitled to dower (Co. Litt. 31 b.).
In Andr6's case [2 Knapp, 365 n. *] the claimant had lived in England during
the whole period between the years 1749 and 1813, and the principle on which that
case was decided was, that the claimant had been actually domiciled here at the period
of confiscation. In the present case there is no proof whatever of the time when
the Countess came over; and in the absence of any proof of her having been a
British subject, in the most liberal sense of the word, we think the award of the Com-
missioners perfectly right. They. seem to have proceeded upon the ground, that
there was no other proof before them but that she was the wife of a British subject,
and that they considered, and properly considered, was not sufficient.
If the claimants had put their case upon the ground that the Countess was
entitled to compensation under the treaty, as being a British subject by residence in
England, although not a natural-born British subject, evidence to that effect ought
to have been laid before the Commissioners. It is perfectly clear, however, that no
such case was ever laid before them. And their Lordships are therefore of opinion
that this appeal ought to be rejected.
[Mews' Dig. tit. WAR, 4 WAR INDEMNITY: Who entitled to. See Wall's (Count de)
case, 1848, 6 Moo. P.C. 216; Reg. v. Manning, 1849, 2 C. and K. 887, 7 and 8
Viet. c. 66, s. 16; Naturalisation Act, 1870 (33 Vict. c. 14); De Geer v. Stone,
1882, 22 Ch. D. 243 ; and note to Drummond's case, 1834, 2 K'napp, 327.]
[369] COLONEL BENJAMIN GUMBES,-Appellant; An AWARD of the COM-
MISSIONERS for LIQUIDATING the CLAIMS of BRITISH SUBJECTS on.
FRANCE * [June 18, 1834].
In estimating the compensation due for the loss of sugar estates unduly held
under sequestration for a number of years, and of the actual produce of which
during that time there was no evidence; held, that the allowance of £10
per annum for each negro on the estate is not a right principle to pro-
ceed upon [2 Knapp, 383].
Semble: That the proper principle to proceed on, under such circumstances,
would be to ascertain the average number of hogsheads of sugar such estates
' Present: The Vice-Chancellor [Sir Lancelot Shadwell], Mr. Baron Parke, Mr.
Justice Bosanquet, the Chief Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy [the Hon. Thomas
Erskine].
II KNAPP, s68](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0104&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)