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/ssactsengr0485 and id is 1 raw text is: questions that exceed the competency of my powers, and, possibly, even of those
who have framed regulations upon these important subjects. There are also other
points deserving of attention. It is known that there are estates abounding with
slaves, which are in mortgage by special contracts to residents in this country,
commonly English merchants, parties who can bring as many of these slaves as they
think fit over to England, and by that means rid themselves of the security which
they had given to the mortgagees. These, and many other questions deeply affect-
ing the value of West India estates to persons in England, as well as in the colonies,
are questions of very serious import, and entitled to the attentive consideration of
the legislature.
These are the conclusions to which I have arrived, after a very full and mature
consideration of the subject. I can truly say that I arrived at those conclusions
with a mind free from any prepossession upon the subject, and with the determination
to attend to nothing but the fair result of the evidence which applies to it. I am
sensible that other opinions may be formed upon the question ; but, in affirming
the sentence of the Judge of the Court below, I am conscious only of following that
result which the facts not only authorise but compel me to adopt.
Sentence affirmed, with costs.
May 6th 1828. Note.-The provisions of the 5 G. IV, c. 113, s. 34 (in respect to
slaves restored upon appeal), having been complied with, the Court, in order that
the claimant might obtain the costs and damages decreed at Antigua, remitted the
cause.
[135] OSIRIS -(Shaken). December 13, 1827.-On an appeal from an award
of magistrates in a case of salvage, the Court declined to admit further affidavits,
and confirmed the award.
This was an appeal by the salvors from an award of £100 given by three magis-
trates at Penzance for services to the Dutch ship Osiris. In addition to the
evidence before the magistrates, the appellants introduced ten affidavits. The
value of the ship and cargo was £3700.
Dodson and Addams for the owners. These new affidavits cannot be received:
and the reward is quite ample.
Lushington contra.-The salvors state that the magistrates declined to receive
further evidence. Even the facts admitted before them entitle the salvors to a
larger reward.
Court.-The whole evidence should have been produced before the magistrates.
It would seem as if the salvors waited till this foreign ship was out of the way. I
should be very reluctant to hear an appeal of this sort upon evidence not before
the original tribunal ; for how could this Court censure magistrates upon affidavits
of which they knew nothing ? I see no reason to disturb the award; but I shall
not give costs.
Award confirmed.
[136] WILLIAM MONEY -(Jackson). December 13, 1827.-A seaman who
had elected to take at Calcutta a bill of exchange on the owners, instead of cash
in payment of wages, cannot sue the ship, on payment of such bill being refused,
the owners having become bankrupts.
This was a suit for wages brought by William Moakes, late second mate of the
above ship. The petition alleged that the ship's agents at Calcutta paid him his
wages partly in cash, and partly by a bill of exchange upon the London owners,
who had refused payment, and were bankrupts. A responsive plea alleged that
the mate was tendered his full wages in cash; but that being desirous to remit
money to England, the agents, at his request, gave him a bill for £40, payable six
months after sight, on the owners in London.
Lushington, for the mariner, opposed the allegation. It is not disputed the £40
are still due for these wages; but the question is as to the mode of payment,-
whether Moakes can sue the ship, or whether he must prove under the commission
of the owners' estate ? The agents are also bankrupts. If Moakes had chosen to
take a bill of exchange on a firm not connected with the ship, it might be argued
that he had preferred other security, and had quitted his remedy against the ship
E. & A. v.-7
THE OSIRIS
193
2 RAGG. 185.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0485&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)