The WAAKSAM HEID. June 27th, 1799. Lords, April 12th, 1785. not have the effect which generally would follow upon a discontinuance of chace and alteration of course, before the act of capture took place; for generally a discontinuance and alteration would defeat the interest of a joint captor, by destroying the presumption of assistance or intimidation. In the case of the Herman Parlo, it was suggested that the actual captor had extinguished his lights in order to prevent other ships from seeing the chace or capture; and the superior Court held that no effect should be given to any conduct on the part of the other ships só produced; and that the other ships though not in sight, nor actually chacing, should share. I will not suggest that captain King intended any deception, but if the signal ought to have been made, and was from neglect or inattention not made, the conduct of the other ships in discontinuing the chace and altering their course was as much produced by that neglect or inattention, as it could be by the fraud imputed in the other; and the effect being the same, the same legal consequence would follow. It is further alleged, as a strong circumstance in favour of the claim, that in consequence of these ships appearing in sight, the Dutch frigates (for there were two in company) parted, and were by that means more easily taken separately. The natural supposition is, certainly, that they would have kept together and engaged a single enemy: but if it can be proved that the separation took place in consequence of any intimidation conveyed by these vessels, it may entitle them: I shall admit the allegation, but the parties must prove the whole case. They must prove that it was the duty of captain King, King, according to the practice of the Navy, to have made the signal of an enemy in sight; and they must prove also, that the intimidation on the Dutch was produced from their appearance; more especially as it is suggested that there were other British vessels in sight. They must likewise shew that the capture was made, within such a distance as would not totally have removed them from the fair limits of their convoy duty. If they can prove all this, they may, I think, entitle themselves. The WAAKSAM HEID. June 27th 1799. THE FURIE, PLEIT Master. THIS was a case on the admission of the allegation, as to the other Dutch frigate, alluded to in the preceding case. June 27th 1799. Allegation of rejected-- joint capture connected with the preceding case.---Convoy ther elongation from their con On this case it was submitted, that although ing ships prethis capture was made out of sight, the parties charing by firwere still entitled on the same principle, "that the capture was made in consequence of the separation of the Dutch frigates; and that the separation was occasioned by the intimidation conveyed from the appearance of the vessels. On the other side it was said, that the Waaksamheid was taken at nine in the morning; but that this frigate was not taken till nine in the evening, and not till after she had sustained an action; that therefore all the effect of presumptive assistance was extinguished and superseded by the distance and actual contest. Court.---There is also another reason why they cannot entitle themselves to share in this capture, arising voy, &c. The FURIE. arising out of what I observed on the former case; there must have been a farther elongation from the June 27th, convoy, before the convoying ships could, under 1799. any suggestion, have assisted in this capture: if they had not been convoying ships, I should have thought their claim sustainable in this case also ; for although it is going a little farther than the last case, it is not farther than the principle on which the other case was determined would carry us. If it had been by the act of the Sirius only, that they were induced to discontinue the chace, they might still be entitled ; but as they were convoying ships specially associated for the protection of their convoy, they could not have pursued so far without a breach of that special duty: on these grounds I shall hold them to be excluded from sharing in this capture; and therefore I reject this allegation, Feb. 27th, 1801. ship fitted out NOSTRA SIGNORA DEL ROSARIO, British prize THIS was a case of a British prize ship which had been taken by the Spaniards, and sent out as a for war by the chemy, is not to be restored merchant ship, with a letter of marque. to former owners.---Condemnation to the Captors. The King's Advocate stated the history of this vessel to have been, that she was an English ship, which had been taken by the French and carried to Cadiz, and there sold to the Philippine Company; that she was afterwards taken on a voyage to the Manillas by an English cruizer, carried to Gibraltar, and The NOSTRA ROSARIO. Feb. 27th, 1801. and condemned; that she was again bought for the Philippine Company, and was proceeding at the SIGNORA DEL time of the present capture to Lima, with a letter of marque, and carrying a valuable cargo of wines, stated to be worth 40,000l. The papers and depositions fully proved the ship and cargo to be Spanish property. The condemnation of the cargo was moved, and passed, without any observation. 1 On the ship. The King's Advocate submitted, that although the vessel appeared to have been a British prize ship, there were two grounds on which the captors were entitled to have her condemned to them; first, that she was fitted out for war; and secondly, that the condemnation to the former captors at Gibraltar must be taken to have divested the original British proprietors of their interest. Court.---The first ground is fully sufficient. Was there a commission of war? King's Advocate.---Yes; the master says to the second interrogatory, that he had a commission from the King of Spain, but that he had orders from his owners to interrupt no vessel, but to proceed direct to Lima: on the thirty-first interrogatory, it appears that he had twelve guns on board. Ship and cargo condemned to the captors. Feb. 27th, 1801, National cha racter of Mr. Johnson, set aled in England es American consul, remov THE INDIAN CHIEF, SKINNER Master, THIS HIS was a case of a ship and cargo seized in the harbour of Cowes, on a voyage from Batavia to Hamburg, in which two questions arose, respecting iug, in transitu, the national character of Mr. Johnson, claimant of during a voyage the ship, and of Mr. Miller, claimant of the cargo. to the enemies colonies, &c, For the Captors, King's Advocate.--The ship is claimed on behalf of Mr. Johnson, as an American subject, having been taken on a voyage commen▾ cing at London 1795, to Madeira, from thence to Madras, Tranquebar, and Batavia, and back to Hamburgh. As the property of an American subject, so employed in a trade from the colonies of the enemy to ports not of his own country, nor to the ports of his own country, it would be liable to the objection of being engaged in an illegal com merce: it must at least be subject to the question of law, which is reserved in this point in other cases: but the more immediate objection to which this ship is liable, is, that it is the property of a British subject, and therefore liable to confiscation, for being engaged in trading with the enemy. The circumstances of Mr. Johnson's history which affect his national character, are these; he was born in America, but left that country so long ago as 1771, and settled as a merchant in this town. During the American war 1778, he left England, and settled in France as one of a house of trade, reserving to himself, in the articles of partnership, the liberty of returning to America when he thought proper. |