« 이전계속 »
shipment, as also of the arrival of the Robert Bruce, and the progress he had made in disposing of her car
The passage quoted means, therefore, (although
somewhat obscurely expressed,) “It is possible that the outward cargo of the Robert Bruce may not be sufficient to pay for the shipment already made by the Fortuna,
same, and the arrival of this convoy has brought them up 1-8 to 1-4 dollar higher. Coffee is lower, and I expect to buy and lay in good coffee, at 10 to 11 dollars. Messrs.
Hubberts, Taylor & Simp
go to a better market than it
probably meets at Riga. Should they have given you any instructions concerning this vessel, the Captain Behrens has orders to wait for your kind information in regard of the farther destination, which orders from you I beg to send him as soon as you know at what port of the above mentioned he has arrived in England. Please to inform also Messrs. M. & J. Krause, that I have advanced here the captain, 1332 dollars 4 cents, sor the use of ship Fortuna. Next week the cargo of the Robert Bruce will be all delivered, and I endeavour to procure the highest prices possible. The Oznaburgs will sell as well as the Estopillas, but I am sorry you was not aule to get more of the latter, and of a finer quality, being always the leading article of an assortment of linen. The prices of sugar are nearly the
son inform me that I may not expect a convoy leaving Jathe 30th of April. This same convoy can arrive here the 10th or 15th of May, and #ll possible exertion shall be made on my side to get the Robert Bruce laden before this time. I have till now not received an answer of Messrs. Hibberts, respecting the bills on London. Your kind letter of the 18th of December I have duly received. I am happy that the sugars aref bought within your limits, and wish to be as fortunate with those wanted for the Robert Bruce's cargo. I have the nonour, &c. (Signed,) J. F. MUHLENBRUCK.”
1818, and you must, therefore, furnish me with a credit to T- make up the deficiency.” Yohazo and Carricabura no Fortuna. doubt advanced for the purchase of the cargo of sugars upon the credit of the cargo of the Robert Bruce, and according y we find that house charging a commission for advancing. On these facts we are satisfied that the cargo was purchased with British funds. Lastly; there is no evidence that Muhlenbruck was want of e. the agent of M. & J. Krause, and there is abundant K.u..." evidence of his being the avowed and confidential agent ...”. ... of the British house. We see in the midst of the ants, and ox-greatest anxiety to keep up the character of agent to
. that he the Russian house, this gentleman, without being aware ::::::::::... of it, does an act which at once shows to whom he house. holds himself accountable. In his letter to Bennett & Co. of the 24th of March, he requests them to inform the Russian house, that he has made certain advances on account of the ship. But why request Bennett & Co. to do this, if he was himself in immediate connection and correspondence with the Russian house The fact is, his correspondence with the Russian house was fictitious, and his object was to inform Bennett and Co. in reality, whilst he feigned to address himself to M. & J. Kräuse, and thus the letters to the latter house, covering the invoice and bill of lading, although of the same date with that to Bennett & Co. omits this piece 40f information, which, in a real correspondence, would be groundwork of a credit to himself, and contains
nothing but the most general information, just enough in fact to gloss over the transaction, and give it the 1818. aspect of reality." TWith regard to the vessel, it would be enough to Fortuna. observe, that if a neutral ship-owner will lend his Neutral ship name to cover a fraud with regard to the cargo, this...; circumstance alone will subject him to condemntion..." fraud
the carg But in this case there are, also, many circumstances to o: t - - - - --- ship to con maintain a supicion that the vessel was British prop-demnation. erty, or at least not owned as claimed. Although this court, from extreme anxiety to avoid subjecting a neu- Relaxation - - - ... the rules of to tral to condemnation, has relaxed its rules in allowing."...i. time for further proof in a case where there was con
ing farther - proof in a case cealment of papers, yet nothing has been brought for- go
ward to support the neutral character of the ship.
“Havanna, 24th Murch, 1814. Messrs. M.&J. Krause, Riga. With the present I have the honour to send you the invoice and bill of lading of a cargo of Sugars for your esteemed account in the Fortuna, Captain H. Behrens. The ship could not take more than 1520 boxes white, and 600 brown, with Campeachy wood which was necessary for stowing; together $57,5174, for which you will please give me eredit. The sugars are of the .new crop bought at a moderate price, and of a very good guality. And I flatter myself
you will be content with the fulfilment of your kind coinmission. As there is a convoy leaving this place to-morrow for Bermuda, I found it advisable for the Fortuna to join Whe same, and wish her a very quick and safe passage. Of the above documents I shall send you duplicates when I have the honour of writing you again. The prices of Bussian articles are at present—Raven's Duck, $16, Canvass42. Iron can only be sold with a loss, and in small quantities, as the price has fallen, &c. (Signed,)
J. F. MUHLEN BRUCK.”
charter-party, no original correspondence, nothing, in fact, but those formal papers which never fail to accompany a fictitious, as well as a real, transaction. On the contrary, we find the captain, without any instructions from his supposed owners, submitting implicitly to the orders of Bennett & Co. in every thing; and the latter assuming even a control over the contract which he exhibits with hi supposed owner in Riga, and expressing a solicitude about his expenses, which could only have been suggested by a consciousness that the house of B. & Co. would have to pay those expenses. Upon the whole, we are satisfied that it is a case for condemnation both of ship and cargo.
(Constitution AL AND CoMMON LA w.)
GElston, et al. v. Hoyt.
Under the judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20. s. 25. giving appellate jurisdiction to the supreme court of the United States, from the final judgment or decree of the highest court of law or equity of a state, in certain cases, the writ of error may be directed to any court in which the record and judgment on which it is to act may be sound, and if the record has been remitted by the highest court, &c. to another court of the state, it may be brought by the writ of error from that court.
The courts of the United States have an exclusive cognizance of the questions of forfeituro upon all seizures made under the laws of the United states; and it is not competent for a state court to entertain 1818.
or decide such question of forfeiture. If a sentence of condemnation >TT'
be definitively pronounced by the proper court of the United States, Gelston
it is conclusive that a forfeiture is incurred; if a sentence of acquittal W. t oy
it is equally conclusive against the forfeiture; and in either case, the question cannot be again litigated in any common law forum. where a seizure is made for a supposed forfeiture, under a law of the United States, no action ostrespass lies in any common law tribunal, until a final decree is pronounced upon the -proceeding in rem to enforce such forfeiture; for it depends upon the final decree of the court proceeding in rem whether such seizure is to be deemed rightful or tortious, and the action, if brought before such decree is made, is brought too soon. If a suit be brought against the seizing officer for the supposed trespns, while the suit for the sorfeiture is depending, the fact of such pendency may be pleaded in abatement, or a temporary bar of the action. If after a decree of condemnation, then that fact may be pleaded as a bar; if aster an acquittal, with a certificate of reasonable cause of seizure, then that may be pleaded as a bar. If, after an acquittal without such certificate, then the officer is without any justification for the seizure, and it is definitively settled to be a tortious act. If to anaction.of trespass in a state court for a seizure, the seizing officer plead the fact of forfeituro in his defence without averring a lis pendens, or a condemnation, or an acquittal with a certificate of reasona ble cause of seizure, the plea is bad; for it attempts to put in issue the , question of forfeiture in n state court. At common law any person may, at his peril, seize for a forfeiture to the government, and if the government adopt his seizure, and the property is condemned, he is justified. By thc act of the 18th of February 1793, ch. 8. s. 27. officers of the revenue are authorized to make seizures of any ship or goods for any breach of the laws of the United States. The statute of 1794, ch. 50. s. 3. prohibiting time fitting out any ship &c. for the service of any foreign pringe or states, to cruise against the subjects, &c. of any other soreign prince or state, does not apply to any new government, unless it has been acknowledged by tho United States, or by the government of the country to which such new state belonged. And a pea which sets up a forfeiture under that act in fitting out a ship to cruise against such new state, must aver such recog. nition, or it is bad. A plea justifying a seizure under this statute need not state the partie