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/ssactsengr0423 and id is 1 raw text is: THE FREDERICK
slaves are, generally speaking, to be deemed personal property, and it is only by
virtue of positive regulation that they are taken out of that description of property,
and are otherwise to be considered. There is nothing in the evidence now before
me to shew that any act has been done respecting these slaves to produce a departure
from their original character. When the Dutch Government took possession of
the Louisberg estate, it is to be presumed that it did so exactly in the same manner
that an individual would have done; but not so with respect to the public arsenal,
for that is a species of property differing very materially from an estate in land,
and instituted for very different purposes. Non constat that rules relating to private
farms should be applicable to public arsenals. [266] It is probable that slaves are
connected by much slighter ties to the one than to the other. The general rule
must prevail, unless some ground of exception be shewn. Stabitur prCesumptioni,
unless some reason to the contrary be adduced. In this case I see nothing of the
kind made out in evidence, and therefore I pronounce these slaves, which were
employed in the public arsenals of the enemy, to be good and lawful prize to the
captors.
FREDERICK -(Bodom, Master). June 2, 1813.-Alien enemies may sue in the
Courts of this kingdom for wages earned on a voyage to this country, under
the protection of a British licence.
This was a suit for wages brought by three of the mariners who had assisted in
navigating this vessel, which, though disguised as American, was in reality British
property, from London to St. Petersburgh and back, under the protection of a
British licence. An appearance was given under protest, first for the owner, and
afterwards, upon his becoming bankrupt, for the bail, and the demand of the mariners
was resisted on the ground that they had, by the subsequent intervention of hostilities
with America, become alien enemies, and were therefore incapable of suing in the
Courts of this country.
In support of the protest, Lushington contended-That these men, by their own
description of themselves as Americans, and consequently alien enemies, were
incapable of suing for the benefit and protection of the laws of this country. That
it was equally clear they could derive no privilege from the licence, because that
was granted long before the war with America [267] took place; and that it could
not be supposed the British Government meant to extend the protection of the
licence so far as to enable them to become suitors in a British Court of Justice, after
hostilities had actually commenced between Great Britain and their own country.
Brandon v. Nesbit (6 T. R. 23); Bristow v. Tower (ibid. 35) ; Kensington v. Inglis
(8 East, 290); Conway v. Gray (10 East, 536).
For the mariners, Swabey.-The wages were earned and the suit commenced
when the parties were alien friends, and not enemies; and the men having acted
under the faith of a British licence and faithfully discharged their duty towards the
owner, are entitled to receive their stipulated reward. The protection of these men,
in the event of hostilities, must have been in the contemplation of the British
Government, since the terms of the licence authorise the master to depart with his
crew to any, even a hostile port, provided it is not in a state of blockade. The
licence, permitting the men to sail on this voyage, necessarily implies a licence to
sue for the wages earned on the voyage. Sparenburgh v. Banatyne (1 Bos. and
Pul. 163); Wells v. Williams (1 Lord Raymond, 282); Usparica v. Noble (13 East,
332); Vrow Mina, Behrens (ante page 234).
Judgment-Sir W. Scott: I am by no means inclined to sustain the objection
which has been taken on the part of the owner, who has derived great advantage
from the labour of these men, and now, against all justice and conscience, refuses
to pay them the stipulated reward for their services.
What are the facts of the case ? Why, that this vessel, sailing under American
colours, but known by [268] all the parties concerned to be in reality British property,
was navigated by these men to St. Petersburgh, and back again to this country,
under the protection of a British licence. Being disguised as an American ship, it
became necessary that she should be manned by a crew entitled in appearance at
least to an American character, and for that purpose the parties now before the Court
were engaged by the owner. It does not appear with certainty that they are American
citizens either by certificate or nativity : it is true that they describe themselves
1306
I DODS. 266.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0423&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)