The Robert. 1 Acton. JUDGMENT. The sentence of the court below, condemning ship and cargo, was confirmed. THE ROBERT, Thomas, master. July 6, 1809. [*62 ] Condemnation of a neutral entering a port under a blockade de facto, although a justification attempted by pleading ignorance of its existence. ADAMS and Stephen, for captors, proved this vessel, from the papers found on board, and those invoked into the cause from The Samuel, Evans, to have entered the port of St. Pierre on the 21st of May, which was then rigorously blockaded, and daily expected to surrender. During the whole time, whilst in the harbor, she could perceive a lugger belonging to the blockading squadron close in shore, which sometimes was supported by other vessels. The vessel had purposely entered in the night, to avoid the blockading force; and by the supplies which she, in conjunction with others, had introduced into the island, the garrison had been enabled to continue its defence, and prevent that surrender which had been the object of the blockade. Dallas, for the claimant, stated, that the master had received only conditional instructions from his owners to enter this port, should the blockade be discontinued; should that not be the case, he was to make Trinidad or St. Lucia. Being informed, on the voyage by Captain Johnson, of The John and Jane, that the blockade had ceased, he entered the island in company with that vessel, and was totally unacquainted with the blockade, if any really existed. It had been decided in the leading case of The Nancy, Hurd, that a considerable force, sufficient in itself to intercept intercourse generally with the port, was necessary in order to constitute a blockade. Admitting that the solitary lugger mentioned [63] continually maintained its position near the harbor, it could not, therefore, be inferred there existed a blockade de facto, and consequently, on the principle laid down in the first of these cases, the captors should be condemned to restitution, with costs. JUDGMENT. The Nancy. 1 Acton. The sentence of the Vice-Admiralty Court of Antigua, condemning the vessel, was affirmed. NANCY, Woodberry, master. July 6, 1809. Under particular circumstances, a single vessel may be adequate to maintain the blockade of one port, and cooperate with other vessels, at the same time, in the blockade of another neighboring port. THIS vessel had been restored in the Vice-Admiralty Court, in consequence of a deficiency of proof on the part of the captors, who were unable to obtain an affidavit of the blockade of the port of Trinity at the time of the capture. Arnold and Gostling, for the owner. This vessel sailed from Trinity, on the 25th of May, about which period the correspondence of the governor of the island with the French minister of marine states that a frigate showed herself, from time to time, off the port of Trinity, with an intention to cut off supplies. The station of this vessel was sometimes off Trinity, and at others off another port, more than seven miles distant. Such an interruption to the trade of these ports could never be considered an actual blockade, and, there[ *64 ] fore, the * sentence of the court below, restoring the vessel, was perfectly justifiable. Swabey and Stephen, for the captors. The sentence of the court below proceeded merely upon the ground of insufficient proof of the existence of the blockade. This is now altogether obviated; the invoked papers, with the affidavit formerly deficient, prove that it existed. The extensive range of the frigate mentioned was perfectly consistent with the objects she had in view, the blockade of Trinity, and a coöperation with the vessels on the other station. From the activity of the cruisers off this port, this vessel had twice been nearly cut out of the harbor, and her preservation was merely owing to a want of wind. From all these circumstances, the court will most probably be inclined to reverse the sentence of the Vice-Admiralty Court, and repair the injury the captors have sustained. The Nancy. 1 Acton. JUDGMENT. SIR W. GRANT. As it appears the commander on that station considered the force employed completely adequate to the service required to be performed, we feel it necessary to rely on his judgment, and condemn the vessel as prize to the captors. THE ACTRESS, Tinker, THE FREEDOM, Herrick, and ADRIAN, Dalcke, all clearing out from Martinique, in the month of February, whose cases were admitted to be within the principle upon which the sentences of the Vice-Admiralty Courts had been affirmed in the foregoing cases, from which they were not [65] distinguishable, were condemned as prize to the captors, for breach of blockade. ** Chasing suspicious vessels, in the neighborhood of a blockaded port, no cessation of the blockade. In the case of THE EAGLE, Marsan, Adams, for the claimants, contended, that notwithstanding she had entered the island on the 24th February, there was sufficient proof in the papers exhibited, that the blockade had been periodically interrupted by the prevalence of particular winds and the state of the tides; that several vessels had been permitted to go into the ports of the island under British passes, and several others had entered the island whilst the ships appointed to maintain the blockade had been absent, and employed in chasing vessels of a doubtful description. From these interruptions or relaxations of the blockade, the people of the island were uncertain when they were really invested, and hence he was induced to hope the sentence of condemnation would be reversed, as the master's statement that he was totally ignorant of the existence of the blockade was rendered extremely probable from the circumstances mentioned. The court confirmed the sentence of the judge below, condemning the vessel. The Mercury. 1 Acton. [ *66 ] MERCURY, Speck, master. July 6, 1809. Further proof of property admitted, as to a ship and cargo claimed for a neutral merchant, although both appear to have been purchased in the enemy's colony by his asserted resident agent, without particular instructions to make the purchase, but acting under a general permission given him to originate speculations for account of the neutral merchant. A QUESTION arose as to the property of the ship and cargo, both of which were claimed for Mr. Juhel, of New York, an American citizen. His Majesty's Advocate and Stephen, for the captors. The circumstances under which this vessel is described to come into the possession of Juhel are of such a nature as to excite in themselves a strong suspicion that he is not really the proprietor. This vessel, during the blockade of Martinique, lay in the harbor of Fort Royal, and was purchased by a Mr. Cock, who assumes the character of commercial agent for Juhel, in New York. This purchase is asserted by Cock to have been made for the sole account of Mr. Juhel, who, in his attestation, admits Cock to have unlimited powers given him to originate speculations on his account; and also states that he has considerable funds in the island, in debts or otherwise, by which, and also by bills of his acceptance, this purchase was made and the vessel laden with colonial produce. A suspicion naturally arises, that this purchase for another's account is merely collusive, and that the scheme has been resorted to in order to give a color to the transaction, and conceal the real owner by this nominal transfer. This is supported by Juhel's silence respecting the purchase of this particular vessel. There is no commission specifically given to Cock, but he proceeds in the whole affair like a person consulting solely his own interest and wishes, lading her with such goods as suit his own purpose, and requiring no sanction from Juhel as to the [ *67 ]* asserted purchase of the vessel or lading. In some letters, it is true, he mentions the purchase of both; but it must appear strange that the intimation is not given until the design is already completed. Hence it is fair to infer that he incurred no responsibility to Juhel, or else he would have been more anxious to acquaint him of his intention in time to prevent that responsibility, should the design be disapproved. The whole nature of Juhel's The Mercury. 1 Acton. trade to the island tends to show there is a common concern and joint interest with Cock, or others in the island. They both admit unlimited consignments are constantly making, between the one as agent, and the other as merchant. This is in direct violation of the established usage of merchants, and must have its due influence on your lordships' decision. As soon as the blockade was supposed to have ceased, the vessel departed for New York. From this circumstance, and the conduct of Juhel in the case of The Nancy, Hurd, it appears his trade to that island was carried on with an intention to defeat the blockade. This must necessarily affect his neutral character, and point out a connection with the enemy. This connection has been happily developed by a paper invoked into this cause from the registrar's office at Halifax, which purports to be a power of attorney from John Juhel and Nicholas de Longuemare, to Messrs. Foresight & Smith, of Halifax, empowering them to receive the proceeds of the ship Emanuel's cargo as the joint property of Juhel and Longuemare, and is dated the 9th of March, 1804. This Mr. Longuemare is a Frenchman, and is soon after discovered to be residing in France, probably conducting the concerns of the firm in that country. There has been an attempt made to show that this connection was broken by a dissolution of partner*68 ] ship, which was notified in The New York Mercantile Advertiser, on the 22d of October, 1803. That the connection was not absolutely dissolved is plain, from the date of the power of attorney being much later, namely, March, 1804. There were many reasons, no doubt, to consent to a nominal dissolution of partnership; some, probably, prospective of Longuemare's future residence in France, and others originating in the hope of being able, by this feint, to neutralize the property of the enemy, and defraud our belligerent rights. In the case of The Nancy,1 Hurd, there appears also a claim for property by Mr. Juhel, which it is almost unnecessary to distinguish from the present claim. The same scheme seems to pervade all mercantile transactions in his name. His intentions. evidently are to obviate the blockade of the island, and to cover enemy's property by false papers and documents of neutrality. This last intention, it appears, proved fatal to the interest of an admitted neutral, in the case of The Betsey, Furlong; and, upon this principle, it may not be too presumptuous to hope your lordships will condemn the property in both The Mercury and Nancy. 1 See page 57. |