33. BRIG EVELINA.

Presented March 14, 1854-Heard October 6, and submitted-Disalowed.

For damage alleged to be caused by Her Majesty's shipof-war Winchester running foul of the above vessel in the English Channel in the year 1833.

January 8.-Claim disallowed.

34. BRIG LAWRENCE, Edward Yorke and others, owners. Presented March 14, 1854-Heard September 25, October 6, and November 16, before the umpire, and submitted-Disagreement of the Commissioners-Disallowed by the umpire.

Seized at Sierra Leone in 1848, and condemned on charge of being concerned in the Slave Trade.

November 25.-The Commissioners disagreed on the allowance of the claim, and it was referred to the umpire. January 13, 1855.-Claim disallowed by the umpire.

DUTIES ON WOOLLEN GOODS, Charles Barry, William Frost, and others, agents.

Presented March 14, 1854, May 23, and June 15-Memorial submitted June 19 -Heard August 1, October 25, and December 11 and 13-Withdrawn.

Claims for return of duties levied on woollen goods by the British Government beyond those paid by citizens of other nations, contrary to Treaty between The United States and Great Britain of 1815.

January 13, 1855.- The agent for the said claims addressed a letter to the Commissioners, informing them, that having deemed it advisable for the parties to adjust the same without recourse to the adjudication of the Board, he had effected a settlement with the Government, and desired to withdraw the claims.

Claims withdrawn.

36. THE CICERO.

Presented March 14, 1854-Dismissed.

For seizure and detention for alleged violation of revenue laws.

July 21.-Not sustained. Dismissed.

37. THE JUBILEE.

Presented March 14, 1854-Dismissed.

Claim for salvage.

No evidence submitted. Claim dismissed.

38. THE ROBERT.

Presented March 14, 1854-Dismissed.

Not sustained. Dismissed.

39. THE ELVIRA.

Presented March 14, 1854-Dismissed.

No evidence submitted.

Dismissed.

40. THE OLIVE BRANCH.

Presented March 14, 1854-Dismissed.

No evidence submitted. Dismissed.

The foregoing Docket contains a correct report of awards and judgments made on claims of citizens of The United States against the British Government, after full hearing and examination thereof, and we hereby place our signatures to the same, to be applied thereto in the same manner and as fully as if severally affixed to each of said awards and judgments.

The awards of moneys therein made are to be paid by the British Government to the Government of The United States, for the benefit of the several claimants, their attorneys, legal representatives, or assigns; and said awards are to be regarded as bearing date from the 13th January, 1855.

REPORTS OF DECISIONS BY THE COMMISSIONERS,

AND THE

ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL.

THE "JONES."

HORNBY, British Commissioner:

THIS is a claim made upon the British Government by the representatives of Messrs. Farnham and Frye, of Boston, in respect of losses caused by the seizure of their vessel, the "Jones," by a British cruiser at St. Helena, on the 12th of September, 1840, on a charge of being in British waters without a national character, and on suspicion of being engaged in the Slave Trade, such an offence being punishable under the 2nd & 3rd Vic. c. 73. The ship, it appears, was sent to Sierra Leone for adjudication, on the ground of there being no Vice-Admiralty Court at St. Helena-the particular offence charged being only cognizable in such a court. One, however, of the grounds of complaint is specially founded upon this proceeding, inasmuch, as it is alleged, that any Court of Record had jurisdiction over the charge under the 5th Geo. IV, c. 113. To this point I shall presently advert.

The trial came on at Sierra Leone, and in the month of November following the Judge declared the charge unsustained, and directed that the vessel should be released. Costs, however, were given to the captor, on the ground

that the error into which he had been led in seizing the vessel, was the result of the "wilful misconduct of the master."

وو

The master was not present at the trial, nor does it appear that either he or the owners were represented before the court.

The costs were not paid; and, nobody appearing to claim the vessel, it was ultimately sold in the usual manner, for the benefit of all concerned.

Practically, then, the Commissioners are asked to review the decision of the Vice-Admiralty Court, which has never been appealed against, and which decided two points:— First, that the vessel was not engaged in the Slave Trade; secondly, that she had a national character: with reference to which latter point the court expressed its opinion of the conduct of the master, as supplying a probable cause for the seizure, by awarding costs to the captor.

The claimants approve the first portion of the judgment, but declare the latter part to be wholly unfounded in either reason or justice.

Now I do not think it was ever intended that the Commissioners should sit as a Court of Appeal from the properly constituted courts of either country; and if there were no facts before us, but those on which the Vice-Admiralty Court decided, I should, without hesitation, reject this claim on the ground that this was not a Court of Appeal.

I do not mean to say that circumstances might not arise in many cases, which would induce me to reverse the judgment of a court; but the circumstances must be of a certain character and importance. It would not be sufficient simply to show that a point of law was doubtful, or that another Judge might have taken a different view of the facts. Such matters are within the jurisdiction and province of a Court of Appeal; but if, in a case like the present, additional evidence was offered-evidence of a character tending to show that had it been brought before the Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court, a judgment more favourable to the claimants might have been passed, or that the wrongful act of the party complained against prevented such evidence from being

taken-then, I think, the way would be opened for our

action.

In the present case, the Commissioners have before them the additional evidence of the master, the supercargo, and such members of the crew as were not present at the trial. Two points therefore arise for us to determine :-First, whether this additional evidence is of such a character as to induce us to overrule the judgment of the Vice-Admiralty Court as to costs; and, secondly, whether upon this evidence we ought to award compensation in the nature of damages to the owners for the losses which they have sustained subsequent to the date of the judgment.

As I differ from my learned colleague on both points, I feel bound to go somewhat at length into the evidence.

In doing this, I propose to divide the case into two parts: the one having reference to the seizure and its immediate consequences; the other to the damages which may be said to have been sustained subsequently to the judgment of the Vice-Admiralty Court. Before doing so, however, I must repeat that, as a general principle, effect ought to be given to the judgment of every competent tribunal, when nothing appears tending to impugn the integrity or fairmindedness of the court.

The Commissioners are asked to adopt one part of the judgment in question and to reject the other portion of it. I cannot accede to this course,-because both parts appear to me to be founded upon an equally careful consideration of the circumstances and evidence, and arrived at after equal deliberation.

The first fact in the case which has reference to the subsequent seizure, is the application of the crew of the "Jones" to Lieutenant Littlehales, of Her Majesty's ship "Dolphin," for his assistance and intervention on finding that they were about to return to the coast of Africa. The crew contended that they had signed articles to proceed to "Monte Video," and a market, and thence to a port of discharge in The United States, the undisputed fact being that they had agreed to go to "Monte Video or other parts between the line of latitude 36° south, and back." In their affidavits, subse