Page images
PDF
EPUB

market at Victoria at that time, the market value of one-half of the articles not properly included as a part of the vessel itself in the condition and at the time when they were taken from the schooner, and onehalf of 403 seal skins at the price ruling in the market at Victoria at the time when the vessel would in the natural course of events have discharged her cargo at that port in 1886.

App. B, 104.

THE ONWARD.

CLAIM NO. 3.

The Onward was a schooner of 35.20 registered tons. Charles Spring, a subject of Great Britain, and App. B, 76, Alexander McLean, a citizen of the United States, were partners under the firm name of C. Spring & Co., and equal owners of the vessel at the time of her seizure.

line 20.

line 59.

On

In 1886, after a sealing trip in the spring, she transR.,863, line 5. shipped her skins on the west coast and sailed for Bering Sea, carrying 9 canoes. She commenced App. B, 50, sealing in Bering Sea on July 12, continuing until August 2, at which time she had taken 907 skins, 507 R., 877, line of which had been transferred to the Favourite. R., 64, line August 2, between 4 and 6 o'clock in the morning, the Onward was seized by the United States revenue App. B, 64, Steamer Corwin. She was towed to Unalaska, where her canoes and seal skins were removed and turned over to the United States marshal at Sitka.

38.

10.

line 10. App. B, 65, line 20.

App. B, p. 58,

line 40.

line 30; p.

On August 28 the Onward, her tackle, boats, and cargo were libeled by the United States attorney for App. B. p. 68, the district of Alaska, and on September 20 a libel 71, line 24. and answer were filed on behalf of Charles Spring & Co., claimants of the property. On October 4 a decree of condemnation, forfeiture, and sale was entered against the schooner, her outfit, canoes, and cargo. A motion on the same day was made on behalf of the claimants to set aside the decree. App. B. p. 74, Notice of appeal was filed on the same day on behalf of the claimants. The appeal was never perfected, and no further proceedings were had on the part of claimants to recover possession of the schooner.

line 40.

27.

On the 30th day of December, 1886, Charles Spring R., 891, line and Alexander McLean entered into an agreement App. B, p. 52, dissolving their partnership. In the early part of line 25. 1886, C. Spring & Co. owned three vessels, the Favourite, the Kate, and the Onward. In the agreement for dissolution valuations were placed upon the Favourite and Kate, but no valuation was placed upon the Onward.

48.

As McLean did not desire to continue longer in the R., 892, line business, Spring purchased his share of the part- R., 592, line nership property for about $1,100, but the Onward 39. was not included in the transfer, which would have been done had the owners anticipated her recovery.

A

half interest in the claim against the United States

32.

for the seizure of the Onward was retained under the R., 891, line agreement by each partner. This evidence is conclusive of the fact that the Onward was a total loss to her owners, and was so considered by them.

While the schooner was in the harbor of Unalaska an inventory was made by an officer of the Corwin, giving a detailed statement of the property seized and its condition. This inventory was offered in evidence on behalf of the claimant, and appears as Exhibit App. B, P. No. 32 (G. B.), Claim No. 3.

50, line 35.

There also appears in the testimony taken during the proceedings at Sitka a statement of the arms and App. B, 65, ammunition delivered by the Corwin to the United States marshal at Sitka.

The articles contained in the inventory and in the last statement referred to are the only property for which the United States is liable in any event. The articles covered in the item "unconsumable sealing outfit" are included in the inventory.

ne 20.

Under the schedule, which appears in the Argument on behalf of the claimants, setting forth in detail the damages claimed for the Onward, there is included an item "Premium of insurance paid, $240." The R., 869, line marginal reference given is to a statement of Charles

68.

Spring, in which it appears that he paid originally for insurance on the vessel $260, receiving a rebate of $20. He does not show when this insurance was effected, nor at what time the policy was canceled. It is claimed on the part of the United States that, as the owners had received the benefit of the insurance to the time of seizure, and presumably the full rebate from that time to the expiration of the policy, they sustained no damage.

The charge for "Nine canoes at $28, $252," is obtained from the evidence of Spring, in which he R., 863, line says that the canoes with their outfit were worth, he "would say, $25 each-$25 or $28-anywhere in that neighborhood."

44.

R., 863, line 22.

R., 874, line

59.

He also stated that he had a lien on the canoes for advances made, and that they were partly owned by him and partly by the Indians.

In his cross-examination he testified:

Q. The advance that you made to the Indians, however, is a part of the money which you charged as paid to them, is it not?

A. In some cases.

Q. So if you recover for the value of the canoes, so far as your lien is concerned, and the money which you claimed to pay the Indians you would be recovering the same money twice in some instances?

A. In some instances; but in such a case as that the Indians would be charged.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. When I say the Indians, I mean the Indian hunters would be charged, that would be deducted, and in other cases it was a direct purchase from the Indian that owned the canoe in order to make the complement to send out.

Q. That was in the case where you directly purchased the canoe?

A. Yes.

Q. How many canoes did you directly purchase?
A. I should think some three or four.

The United States insist that in view of this testimony of Spring, one of the owners, this claim should be confined to the three canoes actually purchased, and that their value should be fixed at the

lower figure given by the witness. The money paid the Indians is included in the value of the seal skins.

28.

An item appears in the schedule, "Twelve guns, at $25, $300." The testimony of Spring in relation to R., 865, line this charge shows that they were breech-loading and muzzle-loading shotguns. He also says of them that R., 876, line "they were an old, low-grade," gun; and that a portion of them were owned by the hunters, about six or seven belonging to the owners of the vessel.

The United States claim that the guns which were actually the property of the owners of the schooner are the only ones which can be considered.

The item "Cost of defense at Sitka, $500," is based on the following testimony of Spring:

54.

R., 877, line 2.

Q. Now, were you put to any legal expense at Sitka, or R., 870, line was there a charge made against you?

A. There was a charge.

Q. What was the amount of the charge?

A. $500.

Q. Did your captain draw on you for it?

A. No; he did not.

Q. Did you actually pay it?

A. It is not actually paid, but it will have to be.

Q. Were you sued for it, and judgment obtained against
A. Yes.

you?

Q. Do you know how you were summoned to appear? A. I think it must have been sent down to me; I really do not remember, now.

56.

A transcript of the judgment here referred to is not produced, and no judgment could have been recovered under the laws of the United States by any such service as is suggested, and there is no evidence to show that there was any employment of an attorney by the owners through which they became liable to pay the amount charged. The legal services App. B, 68. which appear by the Record to have been performed on behalf of the owners at Sitka consist of the filing of a demurrer, an answer to the libel, a motion to set aside the decree, and a notice of appeal.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »