1821. Edwards. claimant herself considered as band-boxes, and acThe Robert tually represented as such to the inspector, she now desires may be converted into trunks. Unless this can be done, which would be to disbelieve the whole evidence in the cause, there is no pretence for saying, that all the trunks entered by her as baggage had been landed. The marks on the trunks do not furnish even a presumption in her favour, for on those landed, and on those seised, we find the same inscription, that is, "Mrs. Savage's baggage, apparel, and haberdashery." In this uncertainty and confusion, which is the result of her own irregular conduct, and which it was her business, and not that of the Court, to remove, she has exposed her case to very unfavourable inferences. One of the trunks landed was empty, or contained only a few books and loose papers; and yet it appears, by a cocket produced before the Circuit Court, that this very trunk, when taken board, was valued in London at 115 pounds sterling. What became of the goods which it then contained, is left without explanation. This forms a part of the res gesta, and is a circumstance, if not of strong suspicion, at any rate but little calculated to evince the integrity of the transaction. Without, therefore, entering into a more minute detail of the circumstances of this case, the Court is well satisfied, from the whole of the evidence, notwithstanding some little obscurity in which it is involved, that the trunks in question formed a part of the baggage entry of the claimant, and, therefore, affirm the sentence of the Circuit Court, with costs. (PRIZE.) The NUEVA ANNA and LIEBRE. The Spanish This Court does not recognise the existence of any lawful Court of Prize at Galveztown, nor of any Mexican republic or state, with power to authorize captures in war. APPEAL from the District Court of Louisiana. These were the cases of the cargoes of two Spanish ships, captured and condemned by a pretended Court of Admiralty at Galveztown, constituted by Commodore Aury, under the alleged authority of the Mexican republic. The goods were, after this condemnation, brought into the port of New-Orleans, and there libelled by the original Spanish owners in the District Court. That Court decreed restitution to the original owners, and the captors appealed to this Court. 1821. The Nueva This cause was argued by Mr. Hopkinson for February 27th. the respondents and libellants, no counsel appearing for the appellant and captors. The COURT stated, that it did not recognise the existence of any Court of Admiralty sitting at Galveztown, with authority to adjudicate on captures, nor had the Government of the United States hitherto acknowledged the existence of any Mexican republic or state at war with Spain; so that the Court could not consider as legal, any acts done under the 1821. The Collector. flag and commission of such republic or state. But, as the record, in this case, stated the capture to have been made under the flag of Buenos Ayres, it became necessary to send back the case, in order to ascertain under what authority it was in fact made. Sentence reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings. (INSTANCE COURT.) The COLLECTOR. Wilmot, Claimant. In all proceedings in rem, on an appeal, the property follows the cause into the Circuit Court, and is subject to the disposition of that Court. But it does not follow the cause into the Supreme Court, on an appeal to that Court. After an appeal from the District to the Circuit Court, the former Court can make no order respecting the property, whether it has been sold, and the proceeds paid into Court, or whether it remains specifically, or its proceeds remain, in the hands of the Marshal. It is a great irregularity for the Marshal to keep the property or the proceeds thereof in his own hands, or to distribute the same among the parties entitled, without a special order from the Court; but such an irregularity may be cured by the assent and ratification of all the parties interested, if there be no mala fides. APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Maryland. The facts of this case were as follow: In the year 1807, the schooner Collector and cargo were libelled in the District Court of the district of Maryland, as forfeited under the act of Congress, prohibiting commercial intercourse with certain ports of St. Domingo. John Wilmot, the present petitioner and libellant, and the house of Tagart & Caldwell, claimed the whole property. Pending the proceedings in the District Court, the vessel and cargo were sold under an order to "bring in the proceeds, subject to the future disposition thereof." The money, notwithstanding this order, was never paid to the clerk, nor was it ever deposited by him in any Court, and the Court never afterwards made any order respecting it. The property was condemned in the District, and Circuit Courts, which latter decree was reversed by the Supreme Court, in the Term of February, 1809 and the property libelled ordered to be restored. The mandate of the Supreme Court was filed below, the 11th of May following. The present libel and petition was filed in the District Court, the 8th of June, 1816, when a decree passed dismissing the same, which was afterwards affirmed by the Circuit Court, from whose sentence this appeal was taken. The object of the present appeal was to obtain the benefit of the decree of the Supreme Court, that is, restitution of the property, according to the rights of the respective claimants; the appellant insisting on one half of the proceeds of vessel and cargo, as joint owner, and also upon a lien on the other half as ship's husband, for advances made beyond his proportion of the outfits of the voyage, as well as for expenses in defending the vessel and cargo against the information which had been filed against them, 1821. The Col lector. 1821. The Collector. February 23d. and for this purpose prayed that the Marshal might be ordered to bring in the proceeds, according to the interlocutory decree, and that the same might be restored, pursuant to the decree of the Supreme Court, preserving to the parties their respective rights, liens, &c. concluding with a general prayer for relief. From the petition of the appellant, the answer of the Marshal, and the proofs in the cause, it appeared, that the Marshal, although he sold the schooner and her cargo, did not, in fact, bring the money into Court. That for the moiety of the proceeds belonging to Tagart & Caldwell, an order was given by them in favour of Van Wyck & Dorsey, as early as March, 1807, in consequence of which order Van Wyck and Dorsey, who sold the property at auction, under the Marshal's directions, were permitted to retain the part belonging to Tagart & Caldwell, upon an understanding to keep it, if the vessel and cargo were acquitted, but to return it in case of a different issue. That the other moiety of the proceeds was paid on the 6th of April, 1809, which was previous to the filing of the mandate in the Court below, by the Marshal, to the present appellant, as appears by his receipt of that date, and which expresses the sum therein mentioned, to be for his one half of the net proceeds of the sale of the schooner Collector and cargo. The Marshal died, pending the proceedings, and they were revived against his executors. Mr. Mitchell, for the appellant and claimant, |