Y tain in their refpective dealings with neutrals. But it being notorious to all Europe in the prefent war, that there has been a conftant ftruggle maintained between the governing powers of France, for the time being, and its maritime tribunals, which should most outrage the rights of neutral property; the one by its decrees, or the other by its decifions; the liberation of neutral property out of their poffeffion has been deemed, not only in the judgment of our Courts, but in that of neutrals themselves, a most substantial benefit conferred upon them in a delivery from danger, against which no clearnefs and innocence of conduct could afford any protection; and a falvage for fuch service has not only been decreed, but thankfully paid, ever fince thefe wild' hoftilities have been declared and practifed by France, against all acknowledged principles of the law of nations and of natural juftice. When these lawless and irregular practices are fhewn to have ceafed, the rule of paying falvage for the liberation of neutral property -muft ceafe likewife. But of that fact no evidence whatever is offered, excepting that the French prizemaster said, "That the veffel would not be prize, only the cargo." A thoufand motives might extract fuch a declaration as this from him, very little connected with its truth. It might be only to conciliate the mafter, and purchase from him a corrupt teftimony refpecting the cargo. When the fhip was once within the gripe of a French admiralty court, it was much beyond the power (fuppofing it within the inclination) of that mafter to fay with certainty that The would ever find her way out of it. No proof is offered that the maritime tribunals of France have in any 301 The WAR ONSKAN. Dec. 19th, 1799. The any degree corrected either the fpirit or the form of WARONSKAN their proceedings, respecting neutral property generally; and therefore I fhall not think myself authorised to depart from the practice that has been purfued of awarding a falvage to the captors. Dec. 19th, 1799. Jan. 15th, 1800. Expences allow of which the THE MINERVA, HENRICKSEN Master. ed on corn ships, THIS was a queftion as to the allowance of expences in the case of a cargo of corn, taken 23d April 1794 in a Danish ship, on a voyage from Amsterdam to Leghorn. cargoes had been taken by Government; but only where the original evidence of property was complete, &e, It was objected by the King's Advocate-That the circumftances of this cafe did not come within the rule laid down for the allowance of expences in the corn fhips: That the rule was to grant the expences in those causes where the evidence of property was clear and fufficient to obtain reftitution on the original evidence; but not to grant them, where there was a defect of evidence, requiring farther proof. In fuch cafes, it was held, that as the feizure was justifiable, the parties were not entitled to their expences. In the present case there was in the original evidence no proof of property, either in the papers or in the depofitions (a). Court.-Then I fear this cafe does not come within the rule. Expences refused. (a) One fixth part of this cargo was condemned, as the pro perty of the fubjects of Holland. THE CONQUEROR, TATE Master. Jan, 16th, 1800. THIS HIS was a cafe on farther proof, on the claim of Cafe of property. Mr. Pefchier of Copenhagen, for a cargo of brandies, shipped in France, as it was afferted, for his account, and carried to Holland, and from Holland fent to London, for the English market; where they were feized as prize by the marfhal of the Court of Admiralty. JUDGMENT. Sir W. Scott. This question arises on a feizure made by the marshal of this Court, in December 1794, of feveral parcels of brandies, on board this, and two other British fhips in the port of London; and that circumstance would undoubtedly lead the Court to pay very great attention to any obfervations offered on the part of the claimant; because the prima facie presumption, arising on goods found in fuch a fituation, is, that they are not the property of an enemy: The marshal would receive no encouragement from. the Court to make hafty seizures on light grounds of fufpicion; fuch a practice would manifeftly operate to the great difcouragement of the trade of this country; and therefore if it appeared, that a feizure was made on light information, it would be treated with no fort of indulgence, but on the contrary, receive very severe reprehenfion. On the other fide, if it fhould turn out that the cafe was loaded with difficulties, 304 The CONQUEROR. Jan. 16th, 1800. culties, which appeared hardly consistent with a fair cafe; and if they remain unexplained, after the parties have had all opportunities given them of producing their explanation, with the advantage of having heard the remarks which the Court made on the deficiencies and difficulties of the original cafe; the marshal, in having made fuch a feizure, will have deferved the character of a careful and diligent officer of the Court. In the first proceedings of the cause, a monition iffued to bring in the papers, which had been delivered to fome merchants of this city: among the reft, the bill of lading was brought in; but as it did not express the account and rifque, the parties had a right to demand to be admitted to farther proof; and they had a right also, on the grounds above-mentioned, to expect that their explanations, and farther proof, would be accepted with the most favorable confideration that any cafe could receive. The farther proof was brought in; but being of a nature calculated to generate new doubts, rather than to remove those which had been originally fuggefted, it was pronounced infufficient; and ftill further proof was directed to be made. I am now to decide on this proof, and I am not to take up the cause on the grounds ftated, "refpecting the perfonal character of the parties;" nor am I to attend to thofe confequences that have been mentioned, "that.if this is not a fair case, "Mr. Pefchier is perjured; and Mr. Agier is per"jured, &c. &c." The true nature of the proceeding is, that they exhibit the history of their case, and the proof they make of it; and I am to decide upon that: that if it fhould appear to be loaded with infur mountable difficulties, how it may hit the character of this or that individual, is a confideration foreign to the subject; I am to decide upon facts, and not upon reputations. In the first proof brought in, which very imper fectly opened the origin of the bufinefs, it appeared, that a ship which had been fent from Copenhagen, had found its way into a French port; being, as it was afferted, captured by a French privateer; and that the goods were immediately taken by the Frenchgovernment, and payed for by the prefent cargo. If I am right in my recollection, nothing appeared in that proof, either respecting the quality of the cargo or the property, or the destination to America: on all thefe material points, that proof was totally filent ; the property of that outward cargo, was undoubtedly a point very material to be proved; for if this was a cargo, taken in payment for that, the owner of that cargo muft, prima facie, be taken to be the owner of the present cargo: it was therefore, neceffary to determine that queftion. It now appears that the outward cargo confifted of faltpetre, hemp, and iron, going to America, and, as it is now ftated, not on the account and risk of the present claimant, but on account of other perfons refident in America; who would therefore be, prima facie, owners of the prefent cargo, unless the former interefts fhould appear to be converted by competent authority, and handed over to the present claimant. The prefent claimant, before the Court, is Mr. Pefchier, of Copenhagen; and his atteftation ftates, "that in 1794, he received a letter from Mr. St. John, in America, informing "him VOL. II. The CONQUEROR Jan. 16th, 1800. |