Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

L.

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 Nea. The Sally Mager, 352
6. Property seized as prize of war under the

law of nations is discharged froin all
latent liens or incumbrances, and in this
respect is distinguishable from property
seized as forfeited under the municipal

laws of a State. The Vassau, 605.
7. Vessels and cargoes seized for a violation

of the lawy 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.

Laches.

See EVIDENCE, 8.

Law of Nations.

See BLOCKADE, 32.

CAPTURE, 6.
CONDEMNATION, 128.
ENEMY, 18, 22.
JURISDICTION, 5, 9.
LIEN, 6, 7.
NEUTRAL, 1.3 to 5, 13 to 16.
SPOLIATION, 2
WAR, 2 to 4.

Letters.

See CONDEMNATION, 26.

NEUTRAL, 2.

Libel.

Sce CAPTURE, 8.

CONDEMSATION, 140.
FURTHER PROOF, 4.
JURISDICTION, 4, 7.
PLEADING, 5, 10, 11.
PRACTICE, 5, 23, 24, 26, 33, 43, 51.

Libellants.

Mail.

See AUCTIONEER, 3.

CONDEMNATION, 141.
EVIDENCE, 10, 11, 19, 20, 23.
FURTHER PROOF, 4, 5.
PRACTICE, 32, 37, 39 to 42, 48, 51, 53, 57.
RESTORATION, 17.
VESSEL, 2.

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 couformably to the instructions
of the government. The Peterhoff, 40.

License.

See CONDEMNATION, 79.

NEUTRAL, 6.

Lien.

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.

1. What is necessary to be proved by parties

claining 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.
denned part for outlay: 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, (12U, 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 payinent out of
the proceeds of the property if con.
dembed. 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 clain, bowever urgent,

held by innocent third parties, is al-
lowed io prevail, in a prize court, against
property seized while in use by a bel.
ligerent. The Napoleon, 296.

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 l'nited
States and the public law.

The Oua.
chita, 306.
2. Ignorance of the master as to his cargo.

and as to any of it being contraband of

war. The Sunbram, 316.
3. Alleged ignorance of the master as to the

reason assigned for the capture of his
vessel. The Springbok, 134.

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 tiine 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.
See ADVANCE.

BLOCKADE, 7 to 9, 53, 65, 66, 70 to 72.
CARGO, 5.
CONDEMNATION, 79, 140.
CONTRABAND OF WAR, 8, 10 to 13, 25, 26.
ENEMY, 15, 20.
EVIDENCE, 1, 4,7 to 9, 17, 30, 31.
FREIGHT, I.
PRACTICE, 7 to 9, 18, 39 to 42.
RESTORATION, 7.
SEARCH, 2.
SPOLIATION, 7 to 9, 17, 20, 21, 24.
VESSEL, 3, 4.

Mate.

See ENEMY, 20.

EVIDENCE, 9, 14, 20.
SPOLLATION, 18.

Materials.

See LIEN, 8.

Merchant.

See ENEMY, 35 to 37.

Monition.

See BAIL.
PRACTICE, 5, 15, 21, 51.

Mortgage.

See LIEN, 3.

Motion.
See PRACTICE, 5, 22, 29, 34 to 37, 43, 44, 48, 50.

N.

Nautical Instruments.

See MASTER, 1.

Navy.

See CAPTOR.

CAPTURE, 6.
JURISDICTION, 10.

Navy Department.

See CAPTURE, 6.

Necessity.

Neutra).

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 luw 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. 1d.
3. Property belonging to a neutral who is

domiciled and carrying on trade at an
enemy port is enemy property. Traf.
fio 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 C. 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.

ant. The Maria, 283.
8. No bona fide purchase of the vessel shown

by her neutral claimant from her enemy

owner. The Ella Warley, 288.
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 veysel 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 way to a
port of the enemy.

Id.

See BLOCKADE, 28, 50, 56.

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 ineans, 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.
See BLOCKADE.

CONDEMNATION, 4, 52, 76, 127, 128, 162.
CONTRABAND OF WAR, 12 to 14, 19, 23, 26.
DESTINATION, 2.
ENEMY, 1, 6 to 11, 13, 14, 23 to 25, 29.
EVIDENCE, 16.
FURTHER PROOF, 11, 12.
INTERVENTION.
LIEN, 5.
MASTER, 5.
PAPERS, 16.
PLEADING, 4.
PRACTICE, 2, 8, 50.
RESTORATION, 3 to 5, 11, 26, 34, 35.
SEARCH, 2.
SPOLIATION, 22.
WAR, 2.

Notice.

Sce BLOCKADE, 3, 4, 6, 8 to 11, 13, 16 to 18, 24,

27, 29, 32, 33, 46, 53, 65, 66.
CONDEMNATION, 65,
PRACTICE, 43, 51.

[ocr errors]

13. The proper test to be applied is whether

the contraband goods are intended for
sale or consumption in the neutral inar-
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 objeet 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 cousumption 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 uvit,
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 io 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. 1a.
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. ld.

Oath.

See CARGO, 3.

CLAIM, 1.
PLEADING, 4, 6, 12.
PRACTICE, 25, 28, 61.

Omcers.

See Costs, 7.

Order.

See PRACTICE, 43, 44.

Owner.

1. The title of the absolute owner prevails,

in a prize couri, over the interest of a
lien-holder, whatever the equities be-
tween those parties may be. The Wini

fred, 2.
See BLOCKADE, 8, 52, 53, 65, 66, 68.

CARGO, 1.
CONDEMNATION, 5, 65, 73, 140.
CONTRABAND OF WAR, 3, 5, 6 to 13, 22, 24

to 26.
ENEMY, 15, 21, 24, 35.
EVIDENCE, 4.
FURTHER PROOF, 11, 12.
INTERVENTION.
MASTER, 5.
NEUTRAL, 7 to 9.
PAPERS, 13, 16.
PLEADING, 4, 6, 12.
PRACTICE, 51.
RESTORATION, 18 to 20.
VESSEL, 3.

P.

See PLEADING, 6.

PRACTICE, 1, 19, 22, 25, 31, 56.
PROBABLE CAUSE.
SEARCH
SPOLLATION.

Papers.

Pass.

See CONDEMNATION, 107.

Passenger.
1. Character and status of some of the passen-

gers on the vessel. The Peterhof, 463.
Sec EVIDENCE, 1, 29.

Pleading.

1. Effect of the absence of a log-book unac.

counted for in time of war. The Joseph

H. Toone, 223.
2. Simulated papers as to the destination of

the vessel. 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. Falke 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, 20.
8. False papers as to destination of vessel.

The Maria, 283.
9. Vessel running without any log. The Ella

Warley, 228.
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.

age. The Belle, 294.
11. False destination on the papers of the ves.

rel. The Quachita, 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'x country.
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, 618.
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, 122, 140.
CONTRABAND OF WAR, 10 to 13, 25, 26.
ENEMY, 10, 15.
EVIDENCE, 3, 5, 6, 19, 30, 34, 35.
ISVOICE.
JURISDICTION, 2.
NEUTRAL, 10.

1. The pleadings in prize cases should be sim-

ple, lirect, 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 froin 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, onnitting the averments in

question. The Joseph H. Toone, 124.
5. Au 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. 1d. .
6. A text 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 thaint 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 contined 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 Vapoleon, 295,
10. A libel in a prize care 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,

li.

Possession.

See CONDEMNATION, 52.

Practice.

1. The practice in American prize courts is

to inake 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.

deinned, and an appeal taken by the
claimants to the circuit court, this court,
on evidence that the cargo wan 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, 58,) 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-io 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 contined 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 offi.
cers or crew from the captured vessel, or
the omission to send them into port with

the prize for examination. ld.
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 publie vesels,
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 veszel, 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 const 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. ld.
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. Tko

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 veated ju.
risdiction in the court over the property
seized, the court ordered the curgo 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 forin 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.

« ZurückWeiter »