1822.

The Arrogante Barcelones.

March 14th.

Mr. Justice JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The offence proved upon Almeida in this case is one of a very aggravated nature. He not only violated the neutrality of this government, but effected his purpose, by practising a flagrant fraud, either upon his crew, or upon the revenue officers of the port of Baltimore; or perhaps partially upon both. Every thing in the case proves that the sealing voyage round Cape Horn was a mere pretext; and if it be true that the crew were kidnapped under that pretext, and forced into belligerent service after getting to sea, it is a remarkable instance of bold and successful imposition. But who can believe it? The truth unquestionably is, that the crew, with perhaps the exception of the few who were put in irons, uaderstood perfectly the nature of the enterprize they were embarking in, and were deceived into the belief that their affected ignorance, or the impudence of the fraud, would screen them from the penalties of the laws which forbade their entering into belligerent service.

It cannot, then, be questioned that Almeida now appears before us in the character of a flagrant offender against the laws and neutral obligations of this country. And there is no shadow of a ground for hesitating to apply to this case the established rule of this Court, in cases of illegal outfit, unless it be the condemnation of this vessel and cargo in the Court of Margaritta.

This Court will, for the present, waive all expression of its opinion on the questions raised upon the validity of that condemnation, or the sufficiency of the

1822.

The

document produced to prove it. We will put our decision upon a single, and independent ground, that the view of this Court, with regard to all such cases, Arrogante may henceforth be distinctly understood.

We find the captured property in the hands of the offender, and hold it to be immaterial through what circuity of changes it has come back to him. It is not for him to claim a right springing out of his own wrong. In the hands of a third person, a valid sentence of condemnation, properly authenticated, would present a very different view of the subject. The offender's touch here restores the taint from which the condemnation may have purified the prize. Although a purchaser without notice, may, in many cases, hold his purchase free from an interest with which it was chargeable in the hands of the vendor, yet it cannot return into the hands of that vendor, without reviving the original heir. Nor will Courts of justice ever yield the locus standi in judicio to the suitor, who is compelled to trace his title through his own criminal acts."

Decree affirmed.

a In the case of the Nereyda, which was argued at the present term, the Court was of opinion, that in cases where a condemnation is relied on, the libel as well as the sentence ought to be produced, in order that the Court might judicially see that the foreign tribunal had jurisdiction, and what was the ground of application for condemnation, and the parties by whom it was sought. The Court also thought that the claimant ought to show by competent evidence that he was a bonâ fide purchaser of the property for a valuable consideration; and from the defects of the proofs on both points, the cause was ordered to farther proof. It has therefore been thought fit to omit a re port of the case, until its final decision.

Barcelones.

March 14th.

March 18th.

The MONTE ALLEGRE and the RAINHA DE LOS ANJOS. The Portuguese Consul General, Libellant.

A question of fact upon the bona fides of an alleged sale of Portuguese ships, and their cargoes, which had been captured in violation of our neutrality. Restitution to the original owners decreed.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Maryland. These causes were argued by Mr. Winder, for the appellant and claimant, and by Mr. D. Hoffman, for the respondent and libellant; but as the same points were insisted on as in the preceding cases of the Gran Para and the Arrogante Barcelones, ante pp. 471. 496., it is not thought necessary to report the argument of counsel in the present case. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Monte Allegre was captured by the private armed vessel called La Fortuna, cruising at the time under a commission from the chief of the Oriental Republic. She was completely fitted out, equipped, and manned, in Baltimore, from which port she sailed on her first cruize, in December, 1816; owned and commanded by citizens of the United States; but commissioned by the government of Buenos Ayres. She sailed again on her second cruize, in August,

1817, from the port of Baltimore. This cruize terminated at Buenos Ayres, where she was in part dismantled, some of her rigging and arms being deposited in a store ship which lay near her. The crew also were discharged. After lying in port four or five weeks, she sailed on her third cruize, having the same armament with which she sailed from Baltimore, and about twenty or thirty of the same crew. Her commander was changed, but was still a citizen of the United States; and she sailed under a commission from the Oriental Republic. On this cruize, the Monte Alegre was taken, and sent into the port of Baltimore, where she was libelled by the Consul General of Portugal. She was claimed by William Foster, the prize master, in behalf of the Oriental Republic, who alleged, that while she lay in the port of Buenos Ayres, she was purchased by the government of the Banda Oriental.

The reality of this sale constitutes the only question which can arise in this case.

The testimony in support of it is found in the depositions of James Brown, James Williams, William Towson, and Alexander Towson. They mention the partial dismantling of the vessel, and speak of a report that she was sold, but they give no positive information on the subject, nor did they even hear to whom the sale was made. This testimony would weigh very little, were it even uncontradicted. But the regular transmission of her prizes to Baltimore, her returning to that port, at the termination of her cruize, the depositions taken to show that the original proprietors had not parted with their interest,

1822.

The

Monte

Allegre.

1822.

Crocket

V.

Lee.

are proofs of a continuing American ownership, which are entirely conclusive. There can, then, be no doubt but that the captures made by the Fortuna are in violation of the laws of the United States, enacted for the preservation of our neutrality, and that they ought to be restored when brought within our territory.

The Rainha de los Anjos was a Portuguese vessel, captured by the La Fortuna, in the same cruize in which she captured the Monte Allegre. The cases are, in all material respects, the same.

Sentences affirmed with costs.

(LOCAL LAW. CHANCERY.)

CROCKET V. LEE.

SAME V. SAME.

A question on the validity of a certificate for a settlement right in
Kentucky, and of the entry thereof in the surveyor's office.

It is a settled rule, that the decree must conform to the allegations in
the pleadings, as well as to the proofs in the cause.

Therefore, when the question is on the validity of a location, and neither its vagueness nor its certainty are distinctly put in issue by the pleadings, the testimony to that point will be disregarded by this Court; but if the merits appear to justify it, the cause will be remanded to the Court below, with directions to permit the pleadings to be amended.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Kentucky.