1. What is necessary to be proved by parties
claiming a lien for advances on enemy
property captured as prize in an enemy
vessel. The Lynchburg, 3.

2. The claim of the owner of the acquitted
part of a vessel to a lien upon the con-
demned part for outlays in fitting the
vessel disallowed, and the claimant re-
ferred to the power of the Secretary of
the Treasury, under the 8th section of
the act of July 13, 1861, (12 U. S. Statutes
at Large, 257.) to remit the forfeiture.
The Mary McRae, 91.

3. A mortgagee of captured property has no
right to assert his mortgage in a prize
court, and demand its payment out of
the proceeds of the property if con-
demned. All liens upon captured prop-
erty, which are not in their very nature
open and apparent, like that for freight
upon the cargo laden on board a cap-
tured vessel, are utterly disregarded by
prize courts. The Delta, 133.

4. No equity of lien or claim, however urgent,
held by innocent third parties, is al-
lowed to prevail, in a prize court, against
property seized while in use by a bel-
ligerent. The Napoleon, 296.

5. It is a settled principle of prize procedure
that belligerent captors are discharged
of liens or equities of neutral creditors
resting upon the effects of an enemy
seized at sea. The Sally Magee, 382.
6. Property seized as prize of war under the
law of nations is discharged from all
latent liens or incumbrances, and in this
respect is distinguishable from property
seized as forfeited under the municipal
laws of a State. The Nassau, 665.

7. Vessels and cargoes seized for a violation
of the laws of blockade, or as enemy
property, are prize of war under the law
of nations, and not under municipal au-
thority. Id.

8. Decree of the district court, refusing to
recognize a lien upon the vessel for re-
pairs made and materials furnished prior
to the war, affirmed. Id.

See ENEMY, 30.

OWNER.

PRACTICE, 37, 38.

Log-Book.

See PAPERS, 1, 9.

SPOLIATION, 2, 5, 6, 10 to 13, 25.

Loyalty.

See EVIDENCE, 29.

M.
Mail.

1. On motion of the district attorney, acting
under instructions from the government,
a mail bag, under the official seal of the
general post office of Great Britain,
found on board of the prize vessel, was
ordered by the court to be delivered to
the district attorney, to be by him dis-
posed of conformably to the instructions
of the government. The Peterhoff. 463.

Manifest.

See BILL OF LADING,

CARGO, 2.
PAPERS, 17.

Marshal.

See AUCTIONEER.
COSTS, 3 to 6, 14.
FREIGHT, 2.
PRACTICE, 4, 56.
PRIZE COMMISSIONER, 8.

Master.

1. A motion to redeliver to the master his
nautical instruments denied, he having
been actively engaged in acts of hos
tility against the rights of the United
States and the public law. The Qua
chita, 306.

2. Ignorance of the master as to his cargo,
and as to any of it being contraband of
war. The Sunbeam, 316.

3. Alleged ignorance of the master as to the
reason assigned for the capture of his
vessel. The Springbok, 434.

4. It is a principle of prize law, that a mas-
ter cannot be permitted to aver his ig
norance of the contents of contraband
packages on board of his vessel, and
that he is bound, in time of war, to
know the contents of his cargo. Id.
SEARCH, 2.

5. A neutral owner of a vessel is, as a gen-
eral rule, held responsible for all the
acts of the master of his vessel commit.
ted in violation of the rights of a bellig-
erent. The Peterhoff, 463.

6. A master is, in time of war, bound to
know the contents of his cargo, and can-
not be permitted to aver his ignorance
of the contents of contraband packages
on board of his vessel. Id.

Neutral.

1. There is no public or municipal law which
inhibits a neutral vessel, on a lawful
voyage from Washington city to Hali-
fax, from sailing at night on the Poto-
mac river. The Tropic Wind, 64.

2. The questions as to what are considered
in prize law contraband letters or de-
spatches when carried to an enemy, and
as to what personal intercourse with the
enemy is allowed by the prize law, dis-
cussed. Id.

3. Property belonging to a neutral who is
domiciled and carrying on trade at an
enemy port is enemy property. Traf
fic with the enemy is forbidden by pub-
lic law. A sale of property during hos-
tilities in an enemy port, by a person
domiciled and trading there, to a neu-
tral, does not pass the title, and the
property still remains subject to cap-
ture as prize. The Sarah Starr, 69.

4. A neutral domiciled and trading in a bel-
ligerent port can neither hold title to
property acquired there during war, nor
confer it upon others, against the inter-
ests imparted by capture at sea to the
adversary belligerent. Id.

5. There is nothing in the treaties of Novem-
ber 19, 1794, (8 U. S. Statutes at Large,
116,) December 24, 1814, (Id., 218,) and
July 3, 1815, (Id., 228,) between the
United States and Great Britain, which
gives to a British merchant, resident in
a port of the seceded States during the
war, an immunity from the general
principles of public law applicable to
resident neutral merchants. Id.

6. The illegality of sailing under an enemy
license is legal cause for the forfeiture of
a neutral vessel. The Alliance, 262.

7. No legal transfer of the vessel shown from
her enemy owner to her neutral claim-
The Maria, 283.

ant.

9. There is no proof of the bona fide purchase
of the vessel by her neutral claimant
from her enemy owner. The Belle, 294.
10. The question whether or not property
laden on board of a neutral vessel was
being transported in the business of law-
ful commerce is not to be decided by
merely deciding the question as to
whether the vessel was documented for
and sailing upon a voyage between two
neutral ports. The Stephen Hart, 387.

11. The commerce is in the destination and
intended use of the property laden on
board of the vessel, and not in the inci-
dental, ancillary, and temporary voyage
of the vessel, which may be but one of
many carriers through which the prop-
erty is to reach its true and original des-
tination. Id.

12. Nor is the unlawfulness of the transpor-
tation of contraband goods determined
by deciding the question as to whether
their immediate destination was to a
port of the enemy. Id.

13. The proper test to be applied is whether
the contraband goods are intended for
sale or consumption in the neutral mar-
ket, or whether the direct and intended
object of their transportation is to sup-
ply the enemy with them. To justify
the capture it is enough that the imme-
diate object of the voyage is to supply
the enemy, and that the contraband
property is certainly destined to his im-
mediate use. Id.
14. If a contraband cargo is really destined,
when it leaves its neutral port of de-
parture, for the use of the enemy in the
country of the enemy, and not for sale
or consumption in a neutral port, no
principle of the law of nations, and no
consideration of the rights and interests
of lawful neutral commerce, can require
that the mere touching at such neutral
port, either for the purpose of making it
a new point of departure for the vessel
to a port of the enemy, or for the pur-
pose of trans-shipping the contraband
cargo into another vessel, which may
carry it to the destination which was in-
tended for it when it left its port of de-
parture, should exempt the vessel or the
contraband cargo from capture as prize
of war. Id.

15. The division of a continuous transporta-
tion of contraband goods into several
intermediate transportations, by means
of intermediate voyages by different ves-
sels carrying such goods, cannot make a
transportation which is, in fact, a unit,
to become several transportations; al-
though, to effect the entire transporta-
tion of the goods requires several voy.
ages by different vessels, each of which
may, in a certain sense and for certain
purposes, be said to have its own voy-
age; and although each of such voyages,
except the last one in the circuit, may
be between neutral ports. Nor can such
a transaction make any of the parts of
the entire transportation of the contra-
band cargo a lawful transportation,
when the transportation would not have
been lawful if it had not been thus di-
vided. Id.

16. The inception of the voyage completes the
offence. From the moment that the ves-
sel with the contraband articles on board
quits her port on the hostile destination,
she may be legally captured. It is not
necessary to wait until the ship and
goods are actually endeavoring to enter
the enemy's port. The voyage being
illegal at its commencement, the penalty
immediately attaches and continues to
the end of the voyage, at least so long
as the illegality exists. Id.
17. A neutral vessel, laden with a neutral
cargo, may lawfully trade between neu-
tral ports, in time of war, in all descrip-
tions of merchandise, contraband or
otherwise, without being liable to seiz-
ure by a belligerent. The Peterhoff, 463.
18. But a seizure is justifiable if a vessel be
engaged in carrying contraband of war
for or to the enemy, or to the port of the
enemy; and all contraband goods, even
though belonging to neutrals and found
in neutral bottoms, are liable to capture
and condemnation, if seized by a bellig-
erent while on a destination for the use
of the enemy of such belligerent. Id.

19. A neutral friend to both belligerents can-
not transport over the sea the effects of
one to the use of the other, though also
his friend. He is not allowed to aid and
benefit the commerce of one belligerent
to the prejudice of the other. The Mary
Clinton, 556.

20. By investing his means, and participating
in the trade and mercantile concerns of
a belligerent nation, a neutral has, in
effect, affixed to him the national char-
acter of the places at which he carries
on his commerce. Id.

3. False destination on the vessel's papers.
The Lizzie, 243.

4. False destination stated in the vessel's pa-
pers.
The Stettin, 272.

5. False and simulated papers as to the desti-
nation of the vessel. The Robert Bruce,
275.

6. False and simulated papers as to the desti-
nation of the vessel. The Revere, 276.
7. False papers as to destination of vessel and
cargo. The Albert, 280.

8. False papers as to destination of vessel.
The Maria, 283.

9. Vessel running without any log. The Ella
Warley, 288.

10. Although her clearance was from Nassau
for Philadelphia, there is no written evi-
dence in her papers that she was put
upon or attempted to pursue that voy-
The Belle, 294.

age.

11. False destination on the papers of the ves-
sel. The Ouachita, 306.

12. False destination on the vessel's papers.
The Sunbeam, 316,

13. A false destination and a false ownership
of the vessel were alleged on her papers.
The Florida, 327.

14. False papers as to the voyage of the ves-
sel. The Mary Jane, 363.

15. The papers found on board of the vessel,

so far as they represent Nassau as the
ultimate destination of the cargo, were
false and simulated. The Springbok, 434.
16. In time of war a vessel should be furnished
with documents showing the particulars
of her cargo, especially where the vessel
is documented for a neutral port in the
vicinity of the ports of one of the bellig-
erents, and that neutral port is one exten-
sively used as a mere port of call and of
trans-shipment for vessels and cargoes
bound to ports of the enemy, and where
the parties claiming to own the cargo
have been engaged in previous adven-
tures connected with running the block-
ade, or introducing cargoes of contraband
goods into the enemy's country. Id.
17. Deficiencies in the manifest in respect to
the contraband articles on board. The
Peterhoff, 463.

18. The absence of invoices as to some of the
contraband articles. Id.

19. Defects in the bills of lading. Id.
20. False destination on the papers of the ves-
sel. The Ella Warley, 648.

21. False and simulated papers as to the desti-
nation of the vessel. The Sunbeam, 656.

See BILL OF LADING.

BLOCKADE, 9, 20, 22, 23, 25, 30.
CARGO, 2.

CONDEMNATION, 24, 26, 52, 76, 79, 93, 120,
124, 127, 128, 140.

CONTRABAND OF WAR, 10 to 13, 25, 26.
ENEMY, 10, 15.

EVIDENCE, 3, 5, 6, 19, 30, 34, 35.

INVOICE.

JURISDICTION, 2.

NEUTRAL, 10.

1. The pleadings in prize cases should be sim-
ple, direct, and free from technicalities.
The Hiawatha, 1.

2. Mode of pleading in an answer and claim
commented on. The Hannah M. John-
son, 2.

3. What statements are necessary in an an-

swer and claim. The Lynchburg, 3.
4. Motion by the owner of the cargo for leave
to put in a claim to that, as neutral prop-
erty, shipped from one neutral port to
another, there being, in the proposed
claim, averments denying that the vessel
violated or attempted to violate the block-
ade, and invoking the test oath of the
owner of the vessel previously made to
his claim. The court allowed the claim
to be filed, omitting the averments in
question. The Joseph H. Toone, 124.
5. An answer or claim in a prize suit need
contain nothing more than a general de-
nial of the grounds of condemnation
alleged in the libel. Id.

6. A test oath is an oath of ownership simply,
and all papers annexed to such oath will
be stricken from the record as irregular.
The fact of the ownership, with a gene-
ral denial that the captured property is
lawful prize of war, is all that it is proper
to include in the claim. The Delta, 133.
7. A claim in a prize suit should be one of
property merely, and should only put in
issue, by a simple denial, the validity of
the capture. The Cheshire, 151.

8. A claim and answer in a prize cause should
be confined to the issue of prize or no
prize. The John Gilpin, 291.

9. A claim and answer in a prize suit cannot
put in issue anything but the question of
prize or no prize. The Napoleon, 295.
10. A libel in a prize case need contain no fur-
ther averment than that the property
seized is prize of war. The Sally Ma-
gee, 382.

11. Objections taken in the claims to the suffi-
ciency of the libel in point of pleading
overruled. The Mary Clinton, 556.
12. Effect of a claim and answer in a prize suit
put in and verified by an agent and not
by the owner. The D. Sargeant, 576.
See CLAIM.

PRACTICE, 13, 22 to 26, 28, 29, 49.

Possession.

See CONDEMNATION, 52.

Practice.

1. The practice in American prize courts is
to make final condemnation of enemy
property at the hearing of the cause upon
the ship's papers and the evidence in pre-
paratorio. The Falcon, 52.

2. The suspension of a year and a day after a
default is allowed only when it is doubt-
ful upon the evidence whether the prop-
erty captured belongs to the enemy or is
neutral. Id.

3. The vessel and cargo having been con-
demned, and an appeal taken by the
claimants to the circuit court, this court,
on evidence that the cargo was perisha-
ble, and the vessel and cargo liable to
deterioration, and on the consent of all
the parties, directed the prize commis-
sioners to sell the vessel and cargo at
public auction, and to bring the proceeds
of sale into court. The Pioneer, 61.

4. The act of March 3, 1849, (9 U. S. Stat. at
Large, 378, § 8,) commented on in respect
to the disposition of the proceeds of a
sale by a marshal. Id.

5. Claimants of property seized as prize, who
complain of irregularities, delay, and
acts of negligence on the part of the cap-
tors, must proceed according to rule 23
of the standing prize rules-that is, by
libel and monition, and not by special
motion-to discharge the arrest. The
Tropic Wind, 64.

6. The practice in prize proceeding in the
courts of the United States is governed
by the rules of admiralty law disclosed
in the English reports when not regu-
lated by decisions or rules of the Ameri-
can courts. The Prince Leopold, 89.

7. The settled rule of the prize courts is to
require the captors of a vessel to bring
in for examination her master and prin-
cipal officers and some of her crew, and
the examination must be confined to
them unless special permission of the
court is obtained to examine other per-
sons. The Jane Campbell, 101.

8. Prize law inhibits, under the disallowance
of the right of prize to the captors, and
the positive infliction of punishment by
penalties and costs, any irregularities
against the property seized or the cap-
tured crew, especially where the latter
are neutral. Id.

9. The burden is on the captors to prove the
existence of an overruling necessity jus
tifying the spoliation of property found
on the prize, or the separation of the off-
cers or crew from the captured vessel, or
the omission to send them into port with
the prize for examination. Id.

10. A claimant in a prize suit cannot put in a

special claim or answer leading to issues
other than the one simply of prize or no
prize without the assent of the United
States attorney or the special order of
the court. The Louisa Agnes, 107.
11. The question discussed as to the proper
method of investigating in prize cases
acts of misconduct committed by captors
on the prize property and the officers and
crew of the vessel subsequent to their
arrest. Id.

12. The general rule in respect to captures by
public ships is that the actual wrong-
doer alone is responsible for any wrong
done or illegality committed on the prize.
excepting acts done by members of the
seizing vessel in obedience to the orders
of their superiors. Id.

13. This court establishes this practice-that
the right of reclamation for damages, in
cases of captures made by public vessels,
must be pursued by the parties averring
the grievance and tort committed upon
them by plea and proof, which admit of
counter allegations and full evidence
under them. Id.

14. An affidavit annexed to a claim is extra-
judicial and is not testimony in the
cause. Id.

15. Claimants ordered to sue out a monition to
the captors, and file and serve the alle-
gations and proofs on which they claim
damages. Id.

16. The libel charged that the vessel, while
attempting to violate the blockade, was
burned, and that part of her cargo was
saved as prize, but no proof was given
in support of the libel. The court allowed
the libellants thirty days to produce evi-
dence, failing which the libel to be dis-
missed. The Thomas Watson, 120.

17. Where the testimony of witnesses from the
delinquent vessel is dispensed with, ade-
quate proof must be supplied, aliunde, of
the delictum charged, before a condem-
nation will be awarded. Id.

18. None of the officers or crew of the vessel
were sent into this port with her, or pro-
duced with her to be examined as wit-
nesses, but the master subsequently ap
peared and was examined in preparatorio.
The Henry Middleton, 121.

19. Vessel and cargo held to be enemy prop-
erty on the papers found on board; but
no legal proofs being furnished of the ac-
tual capture, or of any inability to fur-
nish proof of the time and place of seiz
ure, a decree of condemnation was de-
ferred until such testimony should be
produced, or an excuse be furnished for
the admission of secondary proof. The
Sarah and Caroline, 123.
20. There having been no appearance on due
return of the warrant of arrest of the
cargo, and the capture having vested ju-
risdiction in the court over the property
seized, the court ordered the cargo to be
sold and the proceeds to be brought into
court. Id.

21. The vessel was not arrested on the moni-
tion. Id.

22. The invocation of papers is to be obtained,
not by pleading, but by motion. The
Joseph H. Toone, 124.

23. The requisites of a libel in prize stated.
The Empress, 146.

24. The proper form of a libel in prize is a mere
general allegation of prize. Id.

25. The practice in prize proceedings stated as
to the claim and test oath, the interest of
the claimant in the property, and the
inspection by the claimant of the ship's
papers and the proofs in preparatorio. Id.
26. The defence, in the claim, must be limited
to a contestation of the allegations of the
libel. Id.

27. The first hearing is limited to the inquiry
whether the captured property is prize
of war or not. Id.