The St. George.

longed to England, and no contradictory or explanatory evidence being offered thereto, it is ordered that the said vessel be condemned, as prize of war, and forfeited to the United States.

Decree accordingly to be entered.

THE SCHOONER ST. GEORGE AND CARGO.

Vessel and cargo condemned for an attempt to violate the blockade.

(Before BETTS, J., October 14, 1863.)

BETTS, J.: The above vessel and cargo were captured at sea, April 22, 1863, off New Inlet, North Carolina, by the United States ship-ofwar Mount Vernon, and were sent to this port for adjudication. A libel was filed against the prize, demanding its condemnation and forfeiture, April 29, 1863, and a monition and attachment were the same day duly served thereon, which were returned on the 19th of May thereafter. Thereupon, on due and regular proceedings before the court, the default of the prize was proclaimed and decreed, no person intervening or appearing therefor.

It appears, from the certificate of the vessel's registry, that she was a British vessel, owned at the port of Hamilton, Bermuda, November 10, 1853, by John Jay Bowne, of that place. The shipping articles show that the crew engaged, in April, 1863, for a voyage from St. George's, in the Bermudas, to Baltimore, and thence back to the West Indies, and to St. George's. The certificate of clearance from the same port cleared the vessel, with 800 bags of salt and a cargo of general merchandise, for Baltimore, April 10, 1863. The master of the vessel and the agent of the owner testified, on examination in preparatorio, that they knew that Wilmington was in a state of blockade; that they knew of the state of war; that the vessel was boarded by a United States war vessel, April 22, and warned off the coast; and that the warning was indorsed by the boarding officer on the vessel's papers. The first mate testifies that, after leaving Bermuda, the master suggested to him to run the blockade, and that the prize was steered for the coast of North Carolina, to do so. No evidence is given disproving

these facts.

The case is one of a clear intention and attempt to violate the blockade, and a decree of condemnation and forfeiture of the vessel and cargo must be entered.

The Maria Bishop.

THE SCHOONER MARIA BISHOP AND CARGO.

Vessel and cargo condemned as enemy property.

The vessel and cargo having been shipwrecked after seizure, and having been saved by salvors. the court allowed to the salvors, as salvage, one-half of the net proceeds of the salved property, deducting the costs incurred by the United States in the prize suit.

(Before BETTS, J., October 14, 1863.)

BETTS, J.: The above vessel and cargo were captured off Charleston harbor, May 17, 1863. After seizure the vessel and cargo were shipwrecked. The vessel became a total loss, and was abandoned at sea, and the cargo was reclaimed by salvors, and brought to this port for adjudication. A libel was filed by the libellants, against the prize, in this court, June 3d thereafter, and a writ of attachment was issued thereon on the same day, returnable on the 23d of June following. The marshal returned thereon due service of it upon the said cargo, and no person intervening therefor, except as salvors, defaults were taken, according to the course of the court, and a decree of condemnation was ordered by the court thereupon.

On the hearing of the case upon the merits, it was fully proved on the part of the United States that the vessel and cargo were enemy property, owned in Charleston, and had been brought out of that port in violation of the blockade thereof.

On the 2d of June, 1863, the Coast Wrecking Company filed a libel against the aforesaid schooner Maria Bishop and her cargo, demanding a salvage compensation for services, &c., in relieving and saving her from shipwreck and loss while under capture, as aforesaid, by the United States. On the 21st of June following, the United States interposed an answer and claim, and also their own libel, setting forth and demanding the same relief for the aforesaid services. The United States attorney having admitted in court the justness of such demand, and the counsel for the respective parties having submitted it to the judgment of the court to determine the amount of salvage rightfully payable for the salvage services aforesaid, the court, having examined the testimony submitted in the case, and considered the premises, adjudges and determines that one-half of the net proceeds of the salved property, deducting the costs incurred by the United States in the prize suit, be paid to the salvors, or the party representing their interests.

A decree to that effect will be entered.

The Nellie.

THE SLOOP NELLIE AND CARGO.

In this case, no witnesses having been sent in with the vessel, and no reason being furnished for not producing them, and the commander of the capturing vessel being examined by order of the court, but not furnishing any proof of any violation of the blockade, or that the captured property was enemy property, the court ordered the case to stand over for further proof as to the criminality of the vessel, and in order that the absence of all evidence from on board of her might be accounted for, and allowed six months time for that purpose.

(Before BETTS, J., October 14, 1863.)

BETTS, J.: This vessel and cargo were captured at sea, about 25 miles northeast from Port Royal, South Carolina, March 29, 1863, by a United States ship-of-war. The vessel was, by due valuation and course of procedure, taken for the use of the United States at the time, and the cargo was sent to this port for adjudication. Due service and return of the warrant of attachment and of the monition were made; and, no one intervening in defence of the action, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was regularly entered, by default, against the vessel and cargo.

In the absence of other witnesses in the case, John J. Almy was, by order of the court, examined in preparatorio in the cause. He testifies that he was present at the capture of the Nellie at sea; that she had no papers on board; that she was captured because she was found at sea without papers; that her master acknowledged that he had run the blockade out of Charleston with her, and was bound to Nassau; that the capture was made by a United States ship-of-war under command of the witness; that the vessel carried about 75 bales of cotton; and that her master said he came out of Charleston and was going to Nassau, and knew all about the war.

No witnesses were sent in with the captured vessel, nor is any reason furnished for not producing them. No doubt the officer making seizure of a vessel at sea is a competent witness to prove the act of capture, and also circumstances accompanying the capture, which afford reasonable cause for believing the culpability of the property arrested. No proof is furnished by Captain Almy that the vessel in fact evaded the blockade o Charleston, or that the person who made the declarations testified to had been really master of the Nellie, or that the Nellie or her lading were enemy property. The unseaworthiness of the prize vessel and her appropriation to the use of the United States are, prima facie, adequately authenticated if the prize is shown to have been enemy property at the time or to have violated the blockade.

The Tampico.

The case must stand over for further proof as to the criminality of the vessel seized, and in order that the absence of all evidence from on board of her may be accounted for; and it is ordered by the court that the United States be allowed the period of six months from the entry of this decree to produce proof to that end.

THE SCHOONER TAMPICO AND CARGO.

Vessel and cargo condemned for a violation of the blockade.

(Before BETTS, J., October 16, 1863.)

BETTS, J.: This vessel and cargo were captured by the United States ship-of-war Cayuga, April 3, 1863, off the coast of Texas, just after she escaped from Sabine Pass, a blockaded port. The libel was filed May 25, 1863, and the monition issued thereon was returned in court June 16th thereafter. At that time the British consul appeared in open court and interposed a claim of ownership to the vessel and cargo in behalf of British subjects. This appearance and claim was no further prosecuted in court; and the proofs in the cause having been submitted to the consideration of the court, on motion of the United States attorney for a decree of condemnation and forfeiture of the vessel and cargo as prize of war, the evidence produced by the libellants in support of the motion has been examined and considered with a view to ascertain the character and conduct of the vessel and her cargo.

It appears upon the vessel's papers that she was built in New York in 1856. No disposition of the right and title out of the then owner is proved by the papers, other than an informal statement by David J. Jolly, given at Tampico June 25, that he is a British subject, and a further declaration of the British consul at Tampico, June 26, attached to a provisional register of the vessel at that port, to the said Jolly, asserting that Jolly had purchased the vessel and that Henry Shephard was her master. No proof is exhibited, on the papers of the vessel or otherwise, of any consideration paid on the sale of the vessel, or as to who was the vender, or as to the time or place at which the sale was made, or as to the execution of a bill of sale.

Thomas Paulson, who was the master of the vessel when the seizure was made, testifies, on his examination in preparatorio, that the vessel was captured about 35 miles from Sabine Pass and sent into New Orleans; that she was seized for running out of Sabine Pass in evasion

The Tampico.

of the blockade; that the British consul at Tampico appointed the witness master of the vessel; that he took possession of her there; that the crew were all shipped there; that the vessel had a clearance from the collector of Sabine and was bound to Honduras and Matamoras; that Jolly is a British subject and lives at Tampico; that the cargo was laden on board at Sabine; that the laders resided at Sabine; that the witness knew of the blockade; that the vessel passed out of the port at 12 o'clock in the night and was seized at 5 o'clock the next morning; that he had seen the blockading squadron before running out of the port; and that he sailed out intending to elude the blockade. The mate, Lawrence, testifies that the master of the vessel resides at Houston, Texas; that he does not know to what port or place the vessel was bound, or where the voyage was to end; that the vessel was captured about daylight in the morning; that he knew that the port was under blockade; that the vessel attempted to elude it; and that the pilot told him and the captain that the time was a good one to get out, the blockading vessels not being in sight.

Nagle, the supercargo and agent of the cargo, says that the laders of it were residents in Houston, Texas, and that he believes that the cargo is owned in Liverpool.

The evidence all tends to one conclusion: that the whole enterprise, in the procurement of the vessel, her lading, and her despatch, was undertaken with knowledge of its illegality, and with the purpose, on the part of all the parties interested in it, to violate the blockade of the port of Sabine Pass. The vessel and cargo are, for that cause, subject to forfeiture.

Besides, the alleged owner, Jolly, the claimant of the vessel, establishes by proof no legal or equitable title to the vessel. Even if he had paid a fair consideration, and obtained her conveyance to him by a regular bill of sale, he would not be allowed to purchase an enemy vessel in an enemy country, and employ her in commerce and trade in the productions and property of the enemy's country. (Upton's Maritime Warfare, 146 to 151; Wheat. on Captures, ch. 3.) The trade he was pursuing was accordingly illegitimate as to him, and his interest in the vessel is liable to confiscation.

There must, therefore, be a judgment of condemnation and forfeiture of the vessel and cargo seized.