The RISING SUN. July 16th, 1799. fcrap of paper on board fhewing his correfpondence with the perfons at Guernsey; these circumstances connected with the other improbabilities are decifive, and do, I think, fully justify me to reject this claim. With respect to the property of the owners, it would be going too far to fay that they are precluded from farther proof. It appears that they are perfons of property; the mafter was to receive the profits of fome former freights in France; and it appears alfo, that he had made feveral freights for them, and that he was to have credit in London, with which he was to purchase wines at Bourdeaux; all thefe circumftances give a fair foundation to this part of the case. It would, I think, be too hard to hold them concluded by this man's misconduct; the evidence of their property is not at present fufficient, but it may be restored on farther proof, and I shall direct farther proof to be made of their property. With respect to Mr. Walter Seaman, I obferve his claim is of small amount; and I fhould be unwilling to give him much trouble about it; but as he was in fome degree concerned in this fpoliation, and confidering that he went on board at Guernsey, and that he appears not to have been so short a time in Europe as he reprefents, I think thefe are circumftances that require farther explanation; I fhall direct farther proof to be made of his property. It was fubmitted by the King's Advocate that as far as freight was concerned, the owners were legally bound by the mifconduct of the mafter, by the fpoliation of papers. Court. It is certainly the general rule. Arnold. Arnold.-This is a cafe in which the owners were at a great distance, and no way privy to this act. Court.-It may be hard in many cafes, but men muft abide the confequences of their own misplaced confidence. Freight refufed. The RISING SUN. July 16th, 1799. THE VROW JOHANNA, OKHEN Master. July 18th, 1799. THIS was a cafe of a fhip taken 16th December Blockade of 1799, and proceeded against for a breach of the Amfterdam. blockade of Amfterdam, having failed from Peterf burgh for that port, November 6, 1798. Court. The cafes alluded to of the blockade, fet up by the Dutch in the wars of the last century, have no immediate application to this cafe: that was a blockade of the whole coaft of their enemy, the prefent cafe ftands on the queftion of a blockade of Amfterdam, and not of the coaft. It is not denied that if a veffel fail for a blockaded port after having received notification of the blockade, the act of sailing is to be confidered as a breach of the blockade. The only question is then, Whether the blockade notified on the 11th June, and not revoked, is to be confidered as continuing at this time? fhe failed on the 6th of November. Am I to presume that the blockade fo notified not not exift? I cannot prefume it, nor could thofe concerned in difpatching the fhip have enter tained fuch a prefumption. I hold it to be the duty of a country notifying a blockade, to notify the revo cation alfo; there had been no fuch revocation noti The VROW JOHANNA. fied, and therefore I muft prefume that it was still exifting. I hold, that a fhip and cargo failing for July 18th, Amfterdam at that time are liable to condemnation. ? Condemned. 1799. On application of the agent for the cargo, that the Sentence respecting that might stand over for fome inquiry, it was allowed. July 18th, 1799. Blockade of THIS THE NEPTUNUS, HEMPEL Master. "HIS was a cafe of a veffel failing on a voyage from Dantzick to Havre, 26th October 1798, and taken in attempting to enter that port on 26th November. For the Captors, the King's Advocate stated-That the ship was taken in attempting to enter a blockaded port in pursuance of her original destination, and was therefore liable to confifcation, unless fome fufficient ground of juftification could be fhewn. That the master's averment of a general ignorance could not be received, in the cafe of a blockade notified by public declaration. That as to the particular information which the mafter pretended to have received from a British frigate in the North Seas, "That Havre was not blockaded," it was immaterial, as it came too late to discharge the penalty, which had been incurred by the act of failing, and for which the veffel might have been feized by the frigate; that her course had not been altered in confequence of the information, and therefore that fhe ftood stood exactly in the fame fituation as if fhe had never received it. JUDGMENT. Sir Wm. Scott.-This is a cafe of a fhip and cargo feized in the act of entering the port of Havre in purfuance of the original intention under which the voyage began. The notification of the blockade of that port was made on the 23d February 1798, and this tranfaction happened in November in that year; the effect of a notification to any foreign government (a) would clearly be to include all the individuals (a) Refpecting the effect of, notification as to the subjects of those states to whom it was not directly made: August 22, 1799. In the case of the Adelaide, Rofe, a Bremen fhip, which had failed into Amfterdam from America, September 1798, and was captured in her voyage outward in April 1799, it was contended that the penalty did not attach; that by the mafter's evidence it appeared that he was ignorant of the fact; that he failed in September from a diftant country, without feeing any blockading force; that at the time of failing outward he met with only that one ship, which feized him; that no notification had been made to the Hans Towns, and therefore as to them, it was a blockade exifting de facto only, of which the mafter might be allowed to plead his ignorance; that the penal confequences of a notification given to one power, did not affect the fubjects of another ftate that had not received any notificait was prayed that the claimant might be allowed to prove the bona fide ignorance of the mafter, and that no notification had been made of the blockade of Amfterdam to the Hans Towns. tion; Court. This fhip is proceeded againft on account of having broken the blockade of Amfterdam. The Court has often decided that egrefs is as much a breach of blockade as ingrefs, if it be done fraudulently. The notification was made to different governments of Europe on the 11th of June 1798; this fhip failed in from America in September of that year ignorant of the fact; but The NEPTUNUS. July 18th, 1799. The NEPTUNUS. July 18th. £799. viduals of that nation; it would be the most nugatory thing in the world, if individuals were allowed to plead their ignorance of it; it is the duty of foreign govern go but it by no means follows from that circumftance that the blockade was raifed, as it might be fufpended by accidents which would not make it legally cease to exift: She proceeded to take in a cargo in the months of November and December, and fails on the 24th of April 1799: The offence is, therefore, in the egrefs. That no notification was made to the Hans Towns is a suggestion of counsel, which makes no part of the affidavit. I will fo far as to accede to the pofition that the notification would not affect fuch a cafe from the fame time, and in the fame manner, as it would affect the fubjects of thofe ftates to whom it was directly made. But that it does not affect at any time is going too far; because if a notification is made to the principal States of Europe, I think a time would come when it would affect the reft; not so much proprio vigore, or by virtue of the direct act, as in the way of evidence. It is the duty of a ftate to make the notification as general as poffible. But I muft think, that a time would come when a notification to neighbouring powers would affect those to whom it was not directly made: From the moment that a notification is made to a government, it binds the subjects of that ftate; because it is fuppofed to circulate through the whole country. But fuppofe a notification is made to Sweden and Denmark, it would become the general topic of converfation; and it would be fcarcely poffible that it should not have travelled to the ears of a Bremen man; and although it might not be fo early known to him, as to the fubjects of the states to which it was immediately addreffed, yet, in process of time it must reach him; and must be confidered to impose the fame observance of it on him: It would ftrongly affect him with the knowledge of the fact, that the blockade was de faño existing : Therefore, on thefe grounds, I fhould hold that although a notification does not proprio vigore bind any country but that to which it is addreffed, yet, in a reasonable time, it must affect neighbouring states with knowledge, as a reasonable ground of evidence ; and I think I do not strain the matter in laying down this rule. As to the circumstances of this particular case, at Amfterdam, it must |