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/ssactsengr0410 and id is 1 raw text is: THE HORATIO
navigation of that port, you will be enabled to form a. more correct judgment, whether
the prize-master was guilty of any neglect of duty, fairly chargeable upon him,
in omitting to take a pilot, and, more especially, whether he was justified in not
acceding to the request made by the master of the vessel, that he would take a pilot ?
Should you be of opinion that he was justified in not taking a pilot, you will then
consider whether, in proceeding in the course described, up to that particular point,
he made proper allowance, as a pilot or person prudently conducting the navigation
of the vessel, so as to avoid, on one side, the sunken rock, which he was bound to
know, and, the other side, to guard against the danger of being carried out by the
current, which he seems to have apprehended.
The Trinity Masters reported-That in not taking a pilot all was not done that
ought to have been done ; and, secondly, as to the track pursued, that there was a want
of due skill in not steering clear of the rocks, which are pointed out to the pilots of
the island by particular marks.
Court.-You, gentlemen, would have thought a pilot very deficient if he had
n6t avoided them.
Answered-In the affirmative.
Court.-My own opinion perfectly coincides with what you have expressed.
From the prize-master's own affidavit it appeared to me that there could be no
doubt.
Restitution in value decreed.
[320] THE HORATIO -(Nelson, Master). Dec. 19, 1806.-Prize Act, construction
on the term, settinq forth by the enemy, &c.
This was a question on the recapture of a British slave ship that had been
taken on the coast of Africa, by three French privateers, who had put men on board,
and had fitted her out, as it was suggested, as a privateer.
On the part of the recaptors, the King's Advocate submitted-Whether the employ-
ment of this vessel as an armed cruiser by the enemy did not supersede the claim
of the original owners, under the clause of the Prize Act, which directs, that, if
such ship or vessel, so retaken, shall appear to have been after the taking of His
Majesty's enemies by them set forth as a ship or vessel of war, the said ship or vessel
shall not be restored to the former owners or proprietors, but shall, in all cases,
whether retaken by any of His Majesty's ships, or by any privateer, be adjudged
lawful prize for the benefit of the captors.
Court.-I am of opinion that this is not such a case, and that it is not to be
considered as such a setting forth, under the Prize Act. Here is no commission of
war-no arming of the vessel, she being, I conceive, originally armed as a slave
ship. The mere act of putting an additional number of men on board, in this
manner by an enemy privateer, will not, I think, have the effect of defeating the
title of the original owner.
Restored on salvage.
[321] THE CONSTANTIA -(Henricksen, Master). Jan. 13 and 27, 1807.-
Proprietary interest in goods, ordered and shipped, but afterwards restrained, to a
different consignment by the shipper.-Right of the shipper, in such cases,
limited to cases of insolvency, &c.
This was a question respecting the proprietary interest of 100 hogsheads of
brandy, which had been shipped at Cette, for the account and risk of Mr. Kye of
Copenhagen, but whichwere afterwards, when on board, countermanded by an
endorsement on the bill of lading, accompanied by corresponding instructions given
to the master by the shipper, under an erroneous information received of the
insolvency of the consignee.
Judgment-Sir W. Scott : This question arises on the property of 100 hogsheads
of brandy, taken on the 22d March, on a voyage from Cette to Copenhagen ; and
the question is, whether these goods are to be considered, under the circumstances
attending them, as the property of the consignor at Cette, or of the consignee at
Copenhagen. The proofs of property that are offered are, first, the letter from the
consignee, in which he quotes some preceding accounts, and then gives orders for
another parcel of brandy, at a low price, with the expression of a wish that the
shipment might not be made till April, though it turns out that the shipment was
6 C. ROB. 320.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0410&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)