THE "ONLY SON."

London, December 14, 1854.

THE umpire reports that this claim is for loss and damage sustained by the owners of the schooner "Only Son," and cargo, in consequence of the illegal conduct of the Collector of the Customs at Halifax, Nova Scotia, in compelling the captain of the schooner to enter his vessel and pay a duty of five shillings per barrel on 825 barrels of flour, composing her cargo, when the intention of the captain was simply to report his vessel for a market, and proceed to some other place should circumstances warrant it. There has been much diplomatic correspondence between the two Governments on the subject of this claim, beginning in the year 1829; the result was, that the British Government agreed to pay whatever loss might have been sustained, provided the particulars of such loss were stated on oath. Such a statement was forwarded to the British Government, and the reply was, that no compensation would be granted. This statement on oath is not now to be found; the loss, however, is stated in the letters enclosing it, to be 1,000 dollars and 2,000 dollars. On the other side, the account sales of the flour at Halifax have been put in, and a certificate from most respectable parties at Halifax, to the effect that had the "Only Son" have proceeded to St. John's, Newfoundland, the state of that market was such that the flour would have netted less by two shillings and ninepence to three shillings per barrel than was actually realized at Halifax; on this ground, the British Government refused all compensation.

On examining the protest of the Captain, made at Halifax at the time, it appears that he never contemplated proceeding to St. John's, Newfoundland, but to a port in The United States in the State of Maine. It seems doubtful how much

loss was sustained; under these circumstances, the umpire awards the sum of one thousand dollars, to be paid by the British Government to the owners of the schooner "Only Son," and cargo, or to their legal representatives, on the 15th of January, 1855.

JOSHUA BATES, Umpire.

"THE GREAT WESTERN STEAM-SHIP COMPANY."

London, December 14, 1854.

THE umpire having been duly notified by the Commissioners under the said Convention, that they had been unable to agree upon the decision to be given with reference to the claim of the "Great Western Steam-ship Company," against the Government of The United States, so far as regards the question of interest on the sum of eleven thousand dollars, which they have agreed to award; and having carefully examined and considered the papers and evidence produced on the hearing of the said claim, and having conferred with the said Commissioners thereon, hereby reports and awards interest at the rate of five per cent per annum, from the 15th June, 1850, to the 15th January, 1855, amounting to the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, making the total award thirteen thousand five hundred dollars, on the 15th January, 1855.

JOSHUA BATES, Umpire.

"TIGRIS AND SEAMEW."

London, December 14, 1854. THE umpire having been duly notified by the Commissioners under the said Convention, that they had been unable to agree upon the decision to be given with reference to the claim of the owners of the "Tigris and Seamew," against the British Government, so far as regards the question of interest on the award of four thousand pounds to which they have agreed; and having carefully examined and considered the papers and evidence produced on the hearing of the said claim, and having conferred with the said Commissioners thereon, hereby reports and awards interest at the rate of three per cent per annum, from the 15th January, 1847, to the 15th of January, 1855, amounting to the sum of nine hundred and sixty pounds, making the total award four thousand nine hundred and sixty pounds, on the 15th January, 1855.

JOSHUA BATES, Umpire.

THE "LORD NELSON."

MR. HORNBY, British Commissioner:

I AM of opinion that Mr. Crook cannot recover, under the Convention of 1853, the damages to which he appears to me to be fairly entitled in respect of the capture of his schooner the "Lord Nelson," on the 5th of June, 1812, by Lieutenant Woolsey, of the United States' Navy, which seizure is admitted to have been wholly unjustifiable, being made in time of peace, and without probable cause of any kind.

The second section of the Convention declares "that no claim arising out of any transaction of a date prior to the 24th of December, 1814, shall be admissible under this Convention," and as it is clear that this claim arises out of a transaction which took place so far back as 1812, the Commissioners have no jurisdiction over it. I agree, therefore, with my colleague in rejecting it.

It so happens, however, that in connection with this claim, another claim arises out of a transaction subsequent to 1814, viz., in the year 1818, the consideration of which is, in my opinion, legitimately within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners; unfortunately, however, my colleague takes a different view, and an appeal to the umpire for his decision will be necessary. Putting on one side the right, under the present Convention, to recover damages against the Government of The United States in respect of the seizure of the schooner "Lord Nelson," and considering that as settled by the decision which Mr. Upham and myself have given-it appears as a fact-that without the knowledge of the claimants, and on an ex parte proceeding, the vessel and cargo were sold, and the money actually realized on the sale, being far less than the real

value, was deposited with the Clerk of the Court (Theon Rudd), to abide the event of any suit which might be commenced against the captor. After the war was over, a suit was commenced by, and decided in favour of, the claimants. Upon demanding, however, the proceeds of the sale, which the Clerk of the Court held in trust for the right owner, it was found that he had embezzled it. In respect, then, of the sum so embezzled by him, amounting to 4,971 dollars, quite irrespective of the damages which were the result of the seizure, the claimants appear to me to have a good claim upon The United States' Government, of which this Commission can take cognizance. This embezzlement is the transaction out of which this claim for 4,971 dollars arises; for the claim arising out of the transaction of the seizurewhich I felt bound, in conjunction with my colleague, to dismiss-is for a much larger amount, and founded upon wholly different circumstances. The embezzlement by an officer of the court of money deposited with him to abide the event of a court determining who were the owners of it— which suit was commenced after 1814, namely, in 1817—is an entirely independent transaction, and has certainly in the present instance no relation to that which had reference to the seizure of the vessel by an individual without authority. In respect of this sum there was no claim on The United States' Government until after the court had indicated the owner of it in 1817, and the officer of the Government had absconded with it. The claim, then, for the first time, arose contemporaneously with the only transaction having reference to it, namely, the embezzlement which gave rise to it; and for this reason I am clearly of opinion it is within our jurisdiction, and without reference to any other case, and on its merits, entitled to our judgment.

I award accordingly to the claimants the sum of 4,971 dollars, with interest at five per cent from the month of April in the year 1818, when the clerk embezzled the money, making a total of 13,800 dollars.

As an authority for the obligation of a Government to indemnify individuals in respect of losses sustained by them