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/ssactsengr0337 and id is 1 raw text is: WALLACE (inv jE) [1866]
board; the desire of carrying on bona fide commerce was evidenced by the very
employment in which he found her, the Captain being at that time engaged in pro-
curing cargo on shore.
Now, we would ask, how is it possible for any merchant ship to visit the coast
of Africa, and a British harbour on the coast of Africa, for the purpose of legitimate
commerce, if under circumstances [139] such as these she is liable to be seized merely
upon the ground of her having certain articles on board, actually required for the
purposes of the trade in which she professes to be engaged, and in which it is proved
that she had for some time previously been actually engaged?,
Their Lordships are, therefore, of opinion, that, as to the existence of the water-
casks, that circumstance is weighed down, explained, and its force entirely taken
away by the other circumstances that were manifest and apparent; and that under
the Statute, 5th Geo. IV. c. 113, that simple fact, adding to it the alleged slave deck,
adding to it the cooking utensils, did not, under the circumstances, constitute a
reasonable primcs facie case for concluding that the vessel must be condemned unless
those things were explained. There was no probabilis causa. for seizure.
Therefore, taking all the circumstances of the case, as they appeared, or might
and ought to have appeared, to the Seizor at the time, there was nothing that justified
the seizure, and on these grounds their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty to
reverse so much of the sentence as holds that the seizure and prosecution were justified
by the circumstances, and to declare that the vessel ought to have been restored,
together with damages and costs; and they will recommend Her Majesty to make the
usual reference to the Admiralty Registrar, together with Merchants to be associated
with him, for the purpose of ascertaining the nature and amount of damages which,
under the circumstances, ought to have been awarded to the Appellant.
Their Lordships are glad to find that the officers of the Crown have been directed
to attend in support [140] of the case of the Respondents. They think, however,
that the national honour requires that damages and costs in this case should be given
to the owner of the ship, and to them must, of course, be added the costs of this appeal.
[Mews' Dig. tit. SHIPPING, XXVI. ADMIRALTY LAW AND PRACTICE, 21. Slave Trade,
23. Appeals, b. To Privy Council; tit. SLAVERY AND SLAVE TRADE, Con-
demnation of Ships-obligation of seizor to justify his acts. S.C. L.R. 1 P.C.
268; 36 L.J. P.C. 3; 12 Jur. (N.S.) 895; 15 W.R. 236. Approved, Reg. v. Casaca,
1880, 5 App. Cas. 548. 5 Geo. IV. c. 113, s. 43, and 5 and 6 Will. IV. c. 60, were
repealed by the Slave Trade Act, 1873 (36 and 37 Vict. c. 88), s. 30. As to appeals
from Vice-Admiralty Courts, see note to the Scindia, 4 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 109.]
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT, HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA.
In the matter of THOMAS JAMES WALLACE, an Attorney and Barrister * [Nov. 2,1866].
An Order suspending an Attorney and Barrister of the Supreme Court of Nova
Scotia from practising in that Court, for having addressed a letter to the
Chief Justice, reflecting on the Judges and the administration of justice
generally in the Court, discharged by the Judicial Committee, as it substituted
a penalty and mode of punishment which was not the appropriate and fitting
punishment for the offence [4 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 157].
The letter, though a contempt of Court, and punishable by fine and imprisonment,
having been written by a Practitioner in his individual and private capacity
as a suitor, in respect of a supposed grievance as a suitor, of an injury done to
him as such suitor, and having no connection whatever with his professional
character, or anything done by him professionally, either as an Attorney or
Barrister; it was not competent for the Supreme Court to go further than
award to the offence the customary punishment for contempt of Court; or to
* Present: Lord Westbury, Sir James William Colvile, and Sir Edward Vaughan
Williams.
IV MOORE K.S., 139](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0337&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)