The Alliance. THE SHIP ALLIANCE AND CARGO. The examination of witnesses in a prize case should be confined to persons on board of the captured vessel at the time of the capture, unless upon special permission of the court first obtained. In this case none of the crew on board at the time of the capture, eleven in number, were examined; but, instead, two seamen who had been discharged from the vessel before her capture were examined; and no explanation of the reason for this was given. This was a great irregu. larity, which cannot be overlooked or disregarded in a consideration of the proofs. Vessel and cargo acquitted of a violation of, or of an attempt to violate the blockade. Vessel held to be neutral property. Further proof ordered as to the neutral ownership of the cargo; and further proof allowed as to the proprietary interests in the vessel, the vessel and cargo being claimed by the same party. (Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.) NELSON, J.: The Alliance was captured on the 2d of May, 1862, while at anchor at the dock of Morehead City, opposite Beaufort, North Carolina, by United States troops, and was subsequently delivered to Commander Lockwood. She is a vessel of over 600 tons burden, and was built in Portsmouth, Maine, some twelve or more years ago. She was owned by Razer and others, of Charleston, South Carolina, down to February, 1861, when she was purchased in Liverpool, by J. R. Armstrong and H. Gerard, British merchants of that city. S. De Forest, an American citizen, was master. He was appointed by the owner, at Liverpool, and then took possession of her. Her last voyage was from St. John's, N. B., to Beaufort, North Carolina. She left St. John's in August, 1861, with an assorted cargo, and arrived at Beaufort on the 22d of the same month. There were no blockading vessels at Beaufort when she entered, and none arrived till several days afterwards. Her cargo was there discharged, and another was put on board, consisting of resin, pitch, and spirits of turpentine. She had no arms or ammunition on board, on her voyage to Beaufort, nor any cargo contraband of war. She was laden with a full cargo about the 14th of September, and remained in port, awaiting the removal of the blockade, from that period until the 2d of May, 1862, when she was captured by the troops that took Fort Macon and the town of Beaufort. She was bound from Beaufort to Liverpool, with the cargo that was on board at the time of capture. The above is, I think, the fair weight of the proofs that are entitled to credit. Some of the facts are sought to be impeached by the testimony of two of the seamen, Stevens and Thompson. One of them is an Italian, and unable to speak or understand English, and both of them were discharged from the Alliance while she was lying at Beaufort, one of them as early as February previous to the capture, and were not of the crew The Prince Leopold. or on board of the vessel at the time of the capture. Why these witnesses were selected and examined in preparatorio, in place of some of the crew on board at the time of the capture, who were in number eleven, has not been explained. It was a great irregularity, which cannot be overlooked or disregarded in a consideration of the proofs. The examination should have been confined to persons on board at the time of the capture, unless upon special permission of the court first obtained. I am satisfied, upon a very full consideration of the proofs, that there was no actual blockade of the port of Beaufort at the time of the entry therein of the Alliance; and further, that no intention existed on the part of the master, after such entry, and the establishment of the blockade, to break it, and that no act was done by him with such intent, while the vessel remained in the harbor previous to her capture. I think, also, that the vessel belonged to British owners bona fide, and even before the breaking out of hostilities. But I am not entirely satisfied that the goods on board of the vessel at the time of capture were the property of British owners, as claimed. Upon this ground, I shall send the case for further proofs on this point, to be presented at the next term of this court; and as the claim of property in the vessel and the cargo is made in behalf of the same party, or one of the same parties, further proofs may be taken as to the proprietary interest in the vessel, as well as the cargo, by either or both of the parties to the suit. THE SCHOONER PRINCE LEOPOLD AND CARGO. Decree of the district court, condemning vessel and cargo as enemy property, and acquitting⚫ them on the charge of violating the blockade, affirmed. (Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.) NELSON, J.: This vessel was captured in the port of New York, on the 21st of August, 1861, by government officers She was laden at the . port of Newbern, North Carolina, with spirits of turpentine, and left that port on the 23d of July, 1861. There was no actual blockade of Newbern at the time. The vessel belongs to H. A. McLeod, a British subject, but resident in Charleston, South Carolina, at the time of capture, and the cargo to A. Wade, a resident of Newbern, and a citizen of North Carolina. The vessel and cargo were condemned as enemy property in the court below, and acquitted on the charge of breaking the blockade. Upon the doctrine of the cases recently decided in the Supreme Court of the United States, the decree must be affirmed. The Ella Warley. THE STEAMER ELLA WARLEY AND CARGO. Decree of the district court, condemning vessel and cargo for an attempt to violate the blockade, affirmed. Mutilation of the log-book and destruction of papers. False destination on the papers of the vessel. (Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.) NELSON, J. This vessel was captured about one hundred miles north of the island of Abaco, one of the Bahamas, east of the Gulf Stream, on the 24th of April, 1862, by the war steamer Santiago de Cuba. The cargo consisted principally of arms, Enfield rifles, Austrian rifled muskets, and other muskets, lead, saltpetre, &c. The vessel belongs to E. Adderly, of Nassau, a British subject, and, probably, the cargo also, although this is left in some uncertainty. The vessel had been recently purchased from a citizen of Charleston, South Carolina, after running the blockade of Charleston two or three times, between that city and Nassau, N. P. She left the latter place in ballast, for Havana, where she took in a part of her cargo, She then returned to Nassau, completed it there, and then sailed, according to her papers, for St. John's, N. B., and was captured some twenty-four hours out, as above stated. The master, A. G. Swasey, states that the vessel was cleared at Nassau for St. John's, and that the cargo was consigned to W B. Wright, of that place, in the same way that previous cargoes had been consigned, when he ran the blockade of the port of Charleston. R. W. Lockwood, the pilot, says that he cannot say where the vessel was bound after leaving Nassau, and that he does not know where she was bound. He further says: "I never heard nor asked any question as to where we were bound. The master, to the best of my knowledge, was the only one who knew where we were bound." He also says: "I think the last voyage began at Nassau, N. P., but I don't know where it was to have ended." And again: "At the time we were taken we were steering our course about north half west, in order to get into the Gulf Stream, and we were not steering to any particular place." Again: "I don't know whether or not we were bound to that port, (Charleston, South Carolina,) on the voyage during which we were captured." It is remarkable that the pilot should be thus in doubt and uncertainty as to the course of the vessel in her voyage from Nassau, and as to her destination. If her course and destination were for St. John's, The Pioneer and The Gondar, he was, of all persons on board the vessel, the most likely to have been advised of it. The uncertainty leads to strong suspicion as to the ostensible voyage. The log-book was mutilated after the capture, or about that time, together with other papers. It is urged, that the only part destroyed was that which related to the former voyages in violation of the blockade of Charleston. But the only evidence of this is that of the master, who gave the order to burn the papers. His testimony on this subject is not entitled to full credit. The whole of the proofs in the case, which I have attentively studied, appear to me to lead to the conclusion that the port of St. John's, N. B., as in former voyages of the vessel from Nassau, was used, simply, as a pretext to cover a voyage to Charleston, in violation of the blockade of that port, and that the destination of the vessel was in reality to that port at the time of the capture. I affirm the decree condemning the vessel and cargo. THE BARK PIONEER AND CARGO. Decree of the district court, condemning vessel and cargo as enemy property, affirmed. (Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.) NELSON, J.: The vessel and cargo in this case were captured off Cape Henry, by the steamer Quaker City, on the 20th of May, 1861. Both vessel and cargo belonged to De Voss & Co., of Richmond, Vir ginia, and, according to the ruling in the case of the Hiawatha, they were subject to condemnation as enemy property. Decree below affirmed. THE SHIP GONDAR AND CARGO. Vessel and cargo acquitted of a violation of, or of an attempt to violate the blockade. (Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.) NELSON, J.: This vessel was captured at Beaufort, North Carolina, May 2, 1862, at the same time with the ship Alliance, already considered, and the decision turns very much on the principles involved in that case. The vessel commenced her voyage in July, 1861, at Liverpool, with a cargo of salt and pig-iron, for the port of Nassau, or any port of the United States, and back to Liverpool. She arrived at Beaufort on the The Sarah Starr. 27th of August following, and discharged her cargo. There was no actual blockade of that port at the time, nor until several days afterward. She commenced taking in her homeward cargo on the 1st of September, and completed her lading on the 14th. It consisted of resin and spirits of turpentine. In the mean time a blockade of the port had been established, and the vessel remained in port awaiting its removal, until she was captured. There is no evidence of any intention to break the blockade by the master, or of any act done by him with such intent. The vessel is claimed by J. R. Armstrong and H. Gerard, residents and merchants of Liverpool, and British subjects. The claim is put in by the master in behalf of the owners. The cargo is claimed by one of these parties, J. R. Armstrong. The British register of February 11, 1861, is in the names of the above parties. The documentary proof as to the property in the cargo shows it to be in J. R. Armstrong. I shall give the same direction to this case that I did to the case of The ship Alliance and her cargo, and make an order for further proofs as to the property in the vessel and cargo at the time of capture. THE BRIG SARAH STARR AND CARGO. Decree of the district court, acquitting the vessel and cargo on the charge of violating the blockade, and condemning the vessel and cargo as enemy property, affirmed as to the non-violation of the blockade, and as to the vessel and a part of the cargo, they being enemy property, and reversed as to the residue of the cargo, it not being enemy property. The claimants of such residue of the cargo were not citizens or residents of the enemy's country, and left it as soon after the breaking out of hostilities as they could convert their property into funds which could be conveniently carried with them; and they were entitled to a reasonable time to withdraw from their business connections in the enemy's country after the breaking out of the war. (Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.) NELSON, J.: The Sarah Starr, with her cargo, was captured on the 3d day of August, 1861, by the United States steamer Wabash, at sea, some thirty miles off Wilmington, North Carolina. The vessel was owned by Cowlan Gravely, a British subject, resident in Charleston, South Carolina. The cargo, consisting of spirits of turpentine and resin, was the property of G. C. & W. J. Munro, citizens of the State of Rhode Island, and residents there, with the exception of 50 barrels of turpentine, which belonged to D. Evans, a citizen and resident of Washington, North Carolina. The Sarah Starr was purchased from C. B. |