Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

See CONDEMNATION, 52, 73, 76, 78, 100, 113, 125

to 127.
Costs, 14, 15.
DAMAGES, I.
ENEMY, 16, 31, 35 to 37.
EVIDENCE, 1 to 3, 5, 15.
FURTHER PROOF, 4, 5,
JURISDICTION, 5 to 10, 12.
LIEN, 4.
PRACTICE, 5, 11, 19 to 21, 42.
RESTORATION, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 15 to 17, 20,

20, 21.
SALVAGE.
SPOLIATION, 13.

Shipper.

See EVIDENCE, 16.

Signal.
See PRIZE MONEY, 7 to 10, 13.

Spoliation.
1. Spoliation of papers not explained by satis-

factory proof. The Zaralla, 173.
2. The intentional mutilation of the log-book

of the vessel is convincing evidence of an
attempt by her to perpetrate a fraud, in
violation of the law of nations, for which
she and her cargo are subject to forfeit-

ure. The Mersey, 187.
3. It will always be inferred that the papers

of a vessel which have been destroyed
related to the vessel or cargo, and.that it
way of material consequence to come un.
lawful interests that they should be de.

stroyed. Id.
4. The spoliation of papers is not per se a

ground for necessarily condemning a
vessel, but it raises a strong presumption
of fraudulent purposes in those having
charge of her, which will effect her con-
demnation if not satisfactorily accounted

for. Id.
5. The particulars of the mutilation of the

log book in this case stated. Id.
6. The log book was mutilated with intent to

mislead and deceive with regard to the
purposes of the voyage, in fraud of the
belligerent rights of the United States,
and the culpability thus shown, coupled
with other marks of disguised and dis-
honest practices, demands the condem-

nation of vessel and cargo. Id.
7. Spoliation of papers by the master. The

Tubal Cain, 240.
8. Spoliation of papers by the master. The

Ann, 242,
9. Spoliation of papers, by the master. The

Lizzie, 243.
10. Imperfection and mutilation of the logo

book. The Slettin, 272.
11. Mutilation and imperfection of log-book.

The Albert, 280.
12. Mutilation and alteration of log-book. The

Maria, 283.
13. The mutilation of the log book of a vessel

is sufficient cause for her condemnation
as prize if she was seized under circum.
stance, which placed it in her power to
violate a blockade, unless the mutilation
is clearly and satisfactorily explained by

the proofs. The Ella Warley, 288.
14. Spoliation of papers. The Ouachita, 306.
15. Spoliation of papers. The Granite City, 355.
16. Spoliation of papers. The Douro, 362.

17. Letters of instruction not delivered up by

the master to the prize master at the
time of capture, but only produced by
him on his examination on the standing

interrogatories. The Stephen Hart, 387.
18. Attempted suppression, by the first officer

of the vessel, of letters showing an in-

tention to violate the blockade. Jd.
19. The spoliation of papers is a strong circum-

stance of suspicion. It is not, however,
either in England or in the t'nited States,
held to furnish, of itself, sufficient ground
for condemnation, but is a circumstance
open to explanation. But if the expla-
pation be not prompt and frank, or be
weak or futile, if the cause labors under
heavy suspicions, or if there be a vebe-
ment presumption of bad faith or groes
prevarication, it is ground for the denial
of further proof, and the condemnation
ensues from defects in the evidence
which the party is not permitted to sup-

ply. Id.
20. Papers on board of the vessel were de-

stroyed at the time of her capture, some
by being burned and some by being
thrown overboard by order of the inas-
ter.

The Petrrhoff, 463.
21. False evidence of the master as to the de.
struction of the papers.

Id.
22. The spoliation of papers on board of a neu.

tral vessel, when overhauled by a bels
ligerent cruixer, is of itxelf a strong cir-

cumstance of suspicion, Id.
23. In England and in the United States spolia-

tion of papers is not held to furnish of
itself sufficient ground for condemnation,
but to be a circumstance open to expla-
nation; yet, if the explanation be not
prompt or frank, or be weak and futile,
if the case labors under heavy suspicions,
or if there be a vehement presumption
of bad faith or gross prevarication, it is
ground for the denial of further proof,
and condemnation ensues fron defects
in the evidence, which the party is not

permitted to supply. Id.
24. Destruction of the vessel's papers by her

mnaster just before capture. The Emne,

561.
25. Mutilation of the log book and destruction

of papers. The Ella Warley, 648.
See CONDEMNATION, 24.

EVIDENCE, 30.

Statutes. commented on.

UNITED STATES:

1849, March 3, Prize Money, 61.
1853, February 26, Costs and Fees, 206,

601.
1861, July 13, Confiscation, 1, 32, 69, 91,

92, 119, 127, 291, 382.
1861, August 6, Confiscation, 1, 52, 69,

382.
186), August 6, District Attorney of New

York, 337.
1862. March 25, Compensation of Officers,

206, 337, 585, 601.
1862, March 25, Costs in Prize Cases, 635.
1862, March 25, Prize Money, 584.
1862, March 25, Sale of Prize Property,

632, 638.
1862, July 17, Compensation of Officers,

585, 595, 601.
1862, July 17, Prize Cases, 310, 337, 638.
1862, July 17, Prize Money, 584.
1863, March 3, Confiscation, 382.

[blocks in formation]

See ADVANCE.

BLOCKADE, 14.
RESTORATION, 5, 6.

U.

Supreme Court.

See APPEAL, 1, 2.

BLOCKADE, 66, 71.
SALE, 2.

Survey.

Sce CONDEMNATION, 40.
JURISDICTION, 2.

T.

Underwriter.
See CLAIM, 2.

United States.

Taxation.

See Costs, 3 to 6.

1. The views of the members of the govern.

ment of Great Britain as to the adminis.
tration of prize law by the courts of the
United States during the present war, as
to the belligerent right of search, as to
violation of the blockade, and as to the
carrying of articles contraband of war,

stated. The Stephen Hart, 387.
See BLOCKADE, 1, 54.

CAPTURE, 1, 3 to 5, 8, 11.
CLAIM, 1.
CONDEMNATION, 40, 97, 100, 113.
CONFISCATION, 2.
Costs, 1.
ENEMY, 1, 15, 16, 19, 22, 35.
EVIDENCE, 15, 28.
FREIGHT, 3, 4
JURISDICTION, 2, 5, 6.
MAIL.
MASTER, 1.
NEUTRAL, 5.
PRACTICE, 6, 43, 45, 47, 60.
PRIZE MONEY, 2, 11, 12.
RESTORATION, 19.
SALVAGE.
SPOLIATION, 6, 19.
WAR, 1, 3 to 5.
WAREHOUSEMAN.

Test Oath.
See CARGO, 3.

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

Title.

1. In prize law, a bill of lading transmitted to

a party to cover his advances on cargo
shipped does not pass the title to the

cargo, The Lynchburg, 3.
See BLOCKADE, 57 to 59.

CAPTURE, 10, 11.
ENEMY, 3, 10, 11. 23 to 25.
NEUTRAL, 3, 4, 7, 8.
OWNER.

V.
Vessel.

Towage,

See Costs, 14.

Trade.

See BLOCKADE, 36, 49, 60.

CAPTURE, 2.
CLAIM, 1.
CONDEMNATION, 73, 113, 127, 128.
CONTRABAND OF WAR.
ENEMY, 2, 12, 14 to 16, 18, 19, 28, 35 to 37.
EVIDENCE, 27, 36.
INVOICE, 2
NEUTRAL, 10 to 20.

1. A vessel is clothed with the character of

the fag she wears. The Hallie Jackson, 2.
2. One-eighth of the vessel being condemnablo

in any event, the libellants have a right
to enforce their remedy against her as an
entirety, whether they retain or remit

the proceeds. The Napoleon, 357.
3. In this case it was held that the claimant

of the vessel had given up the entire con.
trol of her movements to the owners of
her cargo, and had involved her in any
illegality of which they or her master
had been guilty in respect to the cargo.
The Stephen Hart, 387.

4. Held, that the claimant of the vessel was,

under the circumstances of this case, re-
sponsible for the use to which the master
and the claimants of the cargo put the
vessel, naniely, the carrying, for a por-
tion of the distance on its way to the
eneiny's country, of a cargo contrabaud
of war, intended for the use of the enemy,
and to enter the enemy's port by a vio-
lation of the blockade. The Stephen Hart,

387.
Sce ADVANCE.

ARREST, 2, 3.
BLOCKADE, 3, 5 to 9, 12, 17 to 20, 22 to 27,

29 to 33, 36 to 55, 57 to 59, 61 to 63, 65

to 74.
CAPTOR, 2.
CAPTURE, 1 to 4, 6 to 8, 11.
CARGO, 1, 2, 4, 5.
CONDEMNATION, 1 to 3, 6, 7,9 to 17, 19, 21

to 89, 91 to 96, 98, 99, 101 to 103, 105 to

170.
CONFISCATION, 1, 3.
CONTRABAND OF WAR, 3, 4 to 14, 19 to 27.
Costs, 14.
DESTINATION.
ENEMY, 2, 6 to 10, 12 to 15, 21 to 24, 35.
EVIDENCE, 1 to 15, 17, 19 to 21, 24, 26, 35,

37, 32.
FREIGHT, 1.
FURTHER PROOF, 1 to 6, 10 to 12.
INTERVENTION.
INVOICE.
JURISDICTION, 1 to 3,5 to 7, 12.
LIEN, 1 to 3, 7, 8.
MASTER, 3 to 6.
NEUTRAL, 1, 6 to 18.
PAPERS.
PASSENGER.
PLEADING, 4.
PRACTICE, 3, 7 to 9,16 to 19, 21, 32, 37 to

43, 48, 51, 53, 56, 58.
PRIZE COMMISSIONER, 6, 8, 9.
PRIZE MONEY, 1 to 10, 12, 13.
PROBABLE CAUSE,
RESTORATION, 1 to 3, 5 to 12, 14 to 22, 25

to 29,31 to 35.
SALE, 1, 2.
SALVAGE.
SEARCH.
SPOLIATION.
WAGES.

Vessel-of-War.

See CAPTURE, 7, 11.

Visitation.

See SEARCH.

Voyage.
Sec BLOCKADE, 39, 40, 42, 48, 51, 55, 57 to 59, 65,

71.
CAPTURE, 2.
ENEMY, 20.
FURTHER PROOF, 5.
NEUTRAL, 10 to 16.
PAPERS, 10, 14.
PRACTICE, 58.

W.

War.

1. The existing war between the United

States and the rebels is a defensive war
on the part of the former. No formal
declaration of war by the President was
necessary to render lawful the means
adopted by him to repel the warlike
measures of the enemy. The Hiawatha,

1.
2. Under the law of nations, the rights inci.

dent to a war waged by a government
to subdue an insurrection or revolt of its
own subjects or citizens are the same, in
regard to neutral powers, as if the hos.
tilities were carried on between inde-

pendent nations. 1 ld.
3. The hostilities commenced against the

United States by the seceded States have
produced a state of war between the
two communities, as

consequent to
which the United States are authorized
to employ against their enemies the
means of resistance and attack, by land
or naval forces, which are justifiable
under the law of nations. The Sarak

Start, 69.
4. A blockade of the ports of their enemy is

one of such lawful means, and is inci-
dent to the war power, and may be im-
posed by the President flagrante bello,
without any act of the legislature de-

claring it. ld.
5. The hostilities subsisting between the goy.

ernment and the rebels have the charac-
ter and attributes of a public war, and
the rules of national law applicable to
wars of that description govern the
rights and liabilities of persons whose
property is captured, as prize of war,
during such hostilities. The Mary Clin.

ton, 536.
See BLOCKADE, 1, 2, 38, 49, 52 to 54, 60, 64.

CAPTURE, 9, 10.
CASES COMMENTED ON, 3.
CONDEMNATION, 97, 100.
CONFISCATION, 2.
CONTRABAND OF WAR.
ENEMY, 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15 to 19, 21, 22, 32

to 37.
INVOICE, 2.
LIEN, 8.
MASTER, 4, 6.
NEUTRAL, 3, 4, 17, 18.
PAPERS, I, 16.
PRACTICE, 33, 58.
RESTORATION, 2, 24.
UNITED STATES.

Warehouseman.

1. In this case, after the decree of this court

condemning the property seized as prize
had been reversed by the circuit court
on appeal, and the property had been
restored to the claimant, a warehouse-
man presented his bill of charges for ser-
vices in regard to the property rendered
under the official employment of the
officers of the court. The court allowed
the bill, the amount being a charge
upon and payable out of the fund for
defraying the expenses of suits in wbich
the United States is a party or interested,
under section 14 of the act of June 30,
1864, (13 '. S. Stat. at Large, 311.)
282 Bales of Cotton, 610.

Wages.
1. A claim of the crew for their wages re-

jected, on the ground that the vessel
was enemy property. The Velasco, 54.

Witness.

See CONDEMNATION, 140.

EVIDENCE, 1 to 4,8 to 12, 14, 15, 17 to 24,

29 to 33, 37, 38.
FURTHER PROOF, 4, 10.
PRACTICE, 34, 39 to 42, 50.
SPOLIATION, 17.

Wreck.

See CONDEMNATION, 157.

Warning

See BLOCKADE, 3, 8, 12, 17, 32, 33, 66, 71.

Warrant.

See PRIZE COMMISSIONER, 8.

Wharfage.

See Costs, 14.

47 PC

0

« ZurückWeiter »