that the case was even tried; all we have is a libel. That no action took place on that libel for nearly two months is clear, since on the 21st of January the Captain gives notice to the Customs to take some steps in the matter; and three days after this notice the ship is given up, and ultimately the goods themselves are restored. I have endeavoured to find out what there is in these simple facts to warrant the assertion, so positively made, that the goods were condemned; and I am totally at a loss to conceive how even a presumption to that effect can be raised.

However, the fact, either one way or the other, is wholly immaterial. The claim is made, not for the seizure of the goods, but for the detention of the vessel; on that point there is distinct evidence; nor is the detention in any way justified. No legal charge is shown to have been brought against the vessel, and no law is cited which would have warranted its detention for one moment longer than was necessary to have landed the goods which were the object of the seizure, and that was done before the expiration of two days. For this illegal detention the claimants are entitled to compensation. The Company's agent estimates the direct and incidental losses occasioned by the detention of the vessel at a very large sum, but they are not, in my opinion, entitled to all the consequential damage they have claimed, even if the evidence of it were conclusive. The actual expenditure, however, on account of the vessel, while detained, is proved to have been not less than one thousand pounds; and I therefore award to the claimants that sum.

London, 29th November, 1854.

THE umpire awards to the Hudson's Bay Company the sum of one thousand dollars, due from the Government of The United States on the 15th January, 1855.

JOSHUA BATES, Umpire.

THE "JOHN."

MR. HORNRY, British Commissioner.

THIS is the case of an American ship and cargo seized on the 5th of March, 1815, by H. M. ship "Talbot," Lieutenant Mawdesley, commander, in lat. 31° 18′ N., and long. 76° W., in ignora ce of the peace that had been concluded between Great Britain and the United States of America, on the 14th of December, 1814. From the evidence adduced, it appears that a prize-master and crew were put on board, that the two vessels sailed in company; but that, in the course of the night of the 11th of March, the prize was lost on the rocks between Point Mulas and Moha Keys, on the Island of Cuba, the "Talbot" being only saved from a like fate by hastily putting about, and standing out to sea.

In the year 1818, the case was brought under the notice of the High Court of Admiralty, by the owner of the ship taking out a monition against the captor to proceed to adjudication; and a full trial was had before Lord Stowell, then Sir William Scott.

From a Report in 2nd. Dodson, p. 336,* it appears that the claimant rested his case on two grounds: first, on the general right to "restitution" in the case of a capture made out of due time and place; and, secondly, on mismanagement of the ship while in the possession of the captors, by which the misfortune was occasioned.

Lord Stowell, however, decided that the capture and possession was bona fide, and that the individual was acting regularly in pursuance of that possession, by means of his agents; and that any mere misfortune happening in such a custody * See Case of "The John," 2nd Dobson, 336.

not being tortious, the captor was not answerable in the way of compensation for the damage this misfortune had produced; although, if no such misfortune had happened, he must have relinquished the possession, and returned the propety to the owner: and he also declared that upon the evidence submitted, “due care of the vessel while under possession by the cruiser was applied," observing that, where due care in possession is taken, the captor is "not answerable for mere misfortune; that misfortune must fall where it immediately alights."

Since the year 1818, no further step has been taken in the matter, the parties interested being apparently satisfied that Lord Stowell's decision precluded all hope of any advantage being gained by further applications for relief; and no claim was ever at any time made upon the Government of Great Britain, until the month of March, 1851, when Mr. Abbott Lawrence, then Minister of The United States at the Court of St. James's, in introducing the case to the notice of the British Government, apologized for doing so after the long interval which had intervened between the occurrence and the application which he was then instructed to make for the first time. The case now comes before us on its merits, and although I have no doubt that, in strict law, and on the authority of the great text-writers on international jurisprudence, the British Government are not liable, under the words used in the Treaty of Peace and Amity of 1814, to make restitution, in the sense of compensation, in respect of a loss by mere accident, and incurred without any fault on the part of the captor; yet I am inclined to give a liberal construction to the language and to the intention of the high Contracting Parties to the Convention under which we act, and to award to the claimant (the widow of the owner of the "John") a fair sum in respect of the value of the vessel and cargo. The agents for Mrs. Shapley have assessed the damages at 10,000 dollars. I conceive, however, that the evidence is wholly insufficient to support so exaggerated an estimate. So far as I have been able to learn, it does not appear that the value of a small coasting schooner of the

build, burden, and age of the "John," together with the cargo of molasses on board, would exceed, upon any fair computation, the sum of 2,800 dollars; but I am willing to take the umpire's opinion upon this point.

I regret, however, that it will be necessary for him to decide upon the question of whether or not interest from the date of the capture should be allowed. I am disposed to award interest from the date of Mr. A. Lawrence's application; but as my colleague is of opinion that interest should be given from the month of March, 1815, it will become necessary for the umpire to take this matter into his consideration. I am at a loss to conceive how, under the circumstances, it can be held that the claimant, as against the British Government, is entitled to interest from that date. No application has ever been made to the Government, except that to which I have alluded, in the year 1852. It is true, as I have stated, that a monition was filed against the captor, and that Lord Stowell refused to hold him liable; but this was a matter of private litigation, and cannot be considered in the light of an application to the Government. Moreover, viewing the claim as one upon the generosity of the Government of this country, I cannot do more than award the fair value of the vessel and cargo, with interest at five per cent. from the date of Mr. Abbott Lawrence's first application to the Department of Foreign Affairs.