Page images
PDF
EPUB

1840.-United States v. Schooner Catharine.

performed whilst the vessel retains her American character and ownership. Where the change of ownership is a part of the scheme, the forfeiture attaches upon all interests concerned. The vessel becomes tainted with the offence wherever she may go, or into whatever hands she may fall. The ownership of this vessel, on her outward voyage, was certainly American. The transfer of the title never did take place, the vessel never having arrived at Bona. The American interest was, therefore, forfeited, within the express terms of the law; and if the arrangement made with Teran, the purchaser, was for the purpose of evading the penalty of our law, he cannot claim any protection of his interest in the vessel in the courts of this country.

[ocr errors]

I am, accordingly, of opinion that the vessel became for feited under the act of Congress, and that the decree of the District Court must be reversed, and a decree of condemnation entered.

Under the view of the case taken by the district judge, it did not become necessary to pass upon the question, whether the claimant, Tyng, has shown a lien in respect to his advances to the owner, which would be protected in case of condemnation of the vessel. But although, according to my view of the case, a decree of condemnation has passed against the vessel, I cannot conceive on what grounds the claimant can be entitled to his claim for advances. His whole claim rests upon his setting himself up as the sole owner of the vessel, which has been thrown upon him by her former owners, by reason of the first sale made by him to Martinez, & Co.; the purchase-money hav ing been paid over by him to them. It is the interest, therefore, of the claimant which has been adjudged forfeited; and a decree in his favor for the advance made by him, which was the whole purchase-money, would be di

1840.-United States v. Schooner Catharine.

rectly repugnant to the decree of condemnation. The grounds upon which condemnation has been pronounced is, that he was an offending party, and implicated in the whole arrangement made touching the adventure; and if so, he comes with an ill grace to ask for the protection of his interest, after being defeated in his illegal undertaking.

Nor do I see how the seamen's claim for wages can be sustained as a lien upon the vessel, according to the view taken by the Supreme Court of this law, in the case of The United States v. Morris. Although they have in their claim denied having any knowledge that the vessel was to be engaged in any unlawful enterprise, yet nothing has been shown by them in any manner supporting this denial; and the circumstances disclosed, certainly show a prima facie case leading to a contrary conclusion. The two seamen who have petitioned for an allowance of their wages, are William Michael and James Foxcroft. I do not find their names on the crew-list, or in the shipping articles; but assuming them to have been a part of the crew, they must have known that the vessel was going on a voyage to the coast of Africa. There is no pretence of any misrepresentation to them in this respect. The shipping articles describe the voyage to be from Havana to the Isle of Principe, or to trade to other ports on the west coast of Africa, and for a voyage not to exceed eight months. No mention is made of a return of the vessel to Havana or elsewhere. But, from anything appearing on the face of the articles to the contrary, their services were to terminate on the coast of Africa, and they left there, or that they expected to be retained on board the vessel, in whatever service she might be engaged at the end of the eight monthsThis latter expectation was most likely what they hoped to realize; and this affords very strong presumptive evi

1840.-United States v. Schooner Catharine.

dence that they understood, or had reason to believe, that the vessel was to be employed in the transportation of slaves; and if so, they were guilty of a criminal offence within the act of Congress, now under consideration. [1] Their claim for wages must, accordingly, be denied.

[1] For a full discussion of the intent of the Act of Congress of 1820, relative to the slave trade, see United States v. Battiste, 2 Sumner, 240.

INDEX.

[blocks in formation]

3.

its equivalent, had come to the
hands of the defendant to be ac-
counted for, it could not be main-
tained against a dormant partner
who receives nothing, and has
therefore no account to render. Ib.
Where, therefore, A. B. & C. en-
tered into partnership in paper-
making, under an agreement recit-
ing the purchase and transfer of a
lease for a term of years to them
as tenants in common, the one-half
of all the interest in said lease, to-
gether with one-half the benefit of
twenty-five hundred dollars rents,
already advanced on the samo, to
be owned and held for the use and
benefit of A., and the other half to
be the property of B. & C.; and
the agreement further provided
that B. & C. should furnish all the
stock and materials of every de-
scription on their own private ac-
count and responsibility-pay all
the expenses, and take charge of
and conduct the business, the busi-
ness to be done for the mutual
profit and loss of the parties ac-
cording to their respective interest;
it was held, that an action of ac-
count brought by B. & C. to have a
settlement of the partnership con-
cerns, and to compel A. to contrib-
ute his proportion, could not be
sustained.

Ib.
4. And where B., one of the partners,
(A. being present and consenting
thereto,) sold the stock and materi-
als of the partnership to a new
company consisting of A. and some
third persons, and charged the
same on the books of A. B. & C.
to the new company, and credited
the old company with the same
(759)

« PreviousContinue »