Imatges de pÓgina





however, taken for that purpose, and in the beginning of the year 1835, Mr. Muter having received no information of the result of the suit wrote out to St. Lucia, desiring to have authenticated copies of the proceedings immediately sent over; which were accordingly transmitted, and received by Mr. Muter through the Colonial Office on the 13th August 1835. The certificate of their verification bore date the 26th June 1835.

On the day following that on which Mr. Muter received the documents, he directed an appeal to be proceeded with, but the usual inhibition could not be obtained, by reason of the application being made fourteen days over twelve months, from the date of the sentence in the Vice Admiralty Court of St. Lucia.

An affidavit of the above circumstances being made, and a certificate from St. Lucia produced, stating, that on the day the sentence of condemnation was given the proctor for Mr. Muter declared he should appeal, and moved for the papers:

Dr. Lushington,

Now moved on behalf of the appellant for leave to prosecute the appeal. The 5 Geo. 4, c. 113, s. 29, enacts, "That no appeals shall be prosecuted from any decree or sentence of any Court of Admiralty or Vice Admiralty touching any of the matters provided for in that Act, unless the inhibition shall be applied for and decreed within twelve months from the time when such decree or sentence was pronounced, except where such decree or sentence shall be passed in any Vice Admiralty Court at the Cape of Good Hope, or to the eastward thereof, in which cases eighteen months shall be allowed for the prosecution of the said




appeal." The question is whether it was the intention of this enactment to exclude the discretion previously vested in the Privy Council, and whether CHIPCHASE. your Lordships have not power to extend the time for appeal. It is a proper case for appeal without doubt.

Mr. Baron PARKE:

All their Lordships are of opinion that they are concluded by the section of the Act referred to, unless the conditions there specified have been complied with.


ELIAS HAIN LINDO, the lawful Agent of

PAUL ROBBRECHT, the sole Owner of Appellant, the French Ship or Vessel La Laure

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

THE petition of appeal in this case was presented

30 May


lay of six


refused to

an appeal,

in July 1835, and stated, that by a sentence in the After a deAdmiralty Court of Sierra Leone, pronounced on the years the 18th November 1829, the ship La Laure was con- Committee demned and forfeited to His Majesty. That Captain grant leave Jastram, the master, having no agent at Sierra to prosecute Leone, or means to procure professional advice, was though the ignorant of the grounds on which the vessel was con- from circumdemned; that Paul Robbrecht, the owner, though which it was informed of the condemnation of the ship, was un- appellant had aware of the grounds on which the sentence of condemnation was founded, and ignorant of any limita

delay arose

stances over

sworn the

no control.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

tion as to the time of appealing against the sentence, and was in consequence of such condemnation, until the year 1833, in a state of pecuniary embarrassment, and unable to obtain funds for appealing from the decree of condemnation: that in the beginning of 1832, he appointed the appellant his agent for the purpose of obtaining relief; that the delay in commencing the appeal was to be attributed to causes which he, Paul Robbrecht, could not control, to the length of time which occurred before he received information of the condemnation of the ship, to the difficulty of communicating with Sierra Leone, and of discovering the proper mode of appealing, and to his pecuniary distress, partly arising from this very seizure.

The petition was supported by an Affidavit of Elias Lindo, the agent of the Appellant, stating his belief of the above facts; upon which,

Dr. Adams

Now moved for leave to prosecute the appeal.

Mr. Baron PARKE:

The delay is beyond all bounds; it is quite impossible to grant the motion.


[blocks in formation]

taking a Bot

from the mas


the further

is bound to

whether such

THIS was originally a cause of bottomry, civil and The party maritime, promoted and brought in the High Court tomry Bond of Admiralty by Andrew Darling of St. Helena, ter of a vessel merchant, the legal holder of a bond of bottomry on supplies for the ship Eliza, her tackle, apparel and furniture, prosecution bearing date the 8th October 1833, for 5207. 8s. 6d., of her voyage, and maritime interest thereon at 7 per cent., making ascertain together the sum of 559l. 9s. 1d., which bond was supplies can given by Henry Thomas Marshall, the master of the be procured ship, to Saul Solomon, of St. Helena, merchant, for sonal credit provisions, stores and other supplies furnished, and before resort advances of money made by him, to enable the ship bottomry to proceed on her voyage from St. Helena to the port curity for of London; Saul Solomon having afterwards endorsed their amount. over the bond to the respondent Andrew Darling, who a party has became and was the legal holder thereof.

on the per

of the owner,

is had to a

bond as se

Semble, where

the means
of knowing
a fact, he is
bound to show
that he exer-

cised reason

to ascertain

The circumstances of the case were as follows: The ship belonging conjointly to Joseph Lidwell able diligence Heathorn, the appellant, and John Samuel Groves, the it. former master, left London in the month of March 1832, with convicts under the command of Groves, on a voyage to New South Wales and Singapore, and


back to London, Marshall, the late master, being at HEATHORN Such time chief mate.



Having landed the convicts at New South Wales in the month of September following, the vessel proceeded in ballast to Singapore. On the 27th of November, whilst at sea, Groves the master died, and Marshall then took the command; and having arrived safely at Singapore on the 5th January 1833, the names of the said Henry Thomas Marshall were duly endorsed on the ship's register. An assorted cargo of merchandize, and three passengers having been then taken on board, on the 3d June following she sailed from Singapore on her return to London, and on the 4th October arrived at St. Helena. Being in want of some provisions and stores, for the further prosecution of her voyage, Lewis Gideon, the agent at St. Helena of Heathorn, the then sole surviving owner of the ship, had an interview with Marshall the master, and stated his readiness to supply the requisite provisions and stores, and to draw a bill on Heathorn for the amount, as he had been accustomed to do. It appeared, however, that Saul Solomon, of St. Helena, persuaded Marshall that as master he had a right to make his election, and further persuaded him to employ him, Solomon, to supply the stores, and give him a bottomry bond for the amount. Gideon protested, but in vain, and in the result Marshall gave Solomon a bond of bottomry on the ship, freight and passage-money, for 5201. 8s. 6d. Gideon immediately sent information to Heathorn of the transaction, who thereupon refused to pay the bond. It appeared that after the bond had been given, Solomon assigned it to the respondent Andrew Darling, of St. Helena. It appeared also that there was some ques

« AnteriorContinua »