APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 
time an alien enemy, the.question 
arose; and at the trial there was 
a verdict for the plaintiff, with 
leave to the defendant to move to 
enter a nonsuit. 
Mr. Parke, Mr. Scarlett, and 
Mr. Barnewall, for the plaintiff, 
stated, that the rule had been ob- 
tained on the ground that the case 
of Mennett v. Bonham, 15 East 
477, Flindt v. Crokett, 522, and 
Flindt v. Scott, 525, governed 
this case; but since the rule was 
obtained, these cases had been 
overruled in the Exchequer cham- 
ber by the unanimous opinion of 
all the Judges; the Chief Baron 
founding the opinion which he 
delivered principally on the case 
of Usparicha v. Noble, 13 East. 
332, and read Lord Ellenbo- 
rough’s judgment in that case 
as the strongest exposition of the 
reasons on which the Court of 
Exchequer founded their judg- 
ment of reversal. He said he con- 
sidered it quite impossible to dis- 
tinguish the case of Usparicha v. 
Noble from the cases then before 
the Court. The learned Counsel 
then contended, thatin those cases 
the license was to a British sub- 
ject and others; but in this case 
it was to Bin, on account of dif- 
ferent British merchants, which 
was much stronger in favour of 
the plaintiff in this case. In those 
cases, no ship was particularly 
designated ; in this the ship was 
pointed out by name: in those 
cases the license was to the Baltic 
generally, where there were some 
neutral ports ; in this the tract of 
country to which the license ex- 
tended was all that of an alien 
enemy. It was undoubtedly law, 
that no alien enemy could trade 
297 
with this country, unless licen: 
sed by the Crown; but it was 
also true, that the Crown could 
exempt any alien enemy from the 
disabilities put upon him by a. 
state of war. That in this case 
the government must have con- 
templated that the cargo must at 
some period belong to alien ene- 
mies ; and it was not good policy 
to force the risk of conveyance to 
this country and from it, to lie a 
burthen on British subjects in- 
stead of alien enemies. They also 
relied on the fact, that Sir Wm. 
Scott had, in this very case, order- 
ed the restoration of the ship and 
cargo when re-captured, on the 
ground that they were protected 
by the license. The cases of Fien 
v. Newham, 16, East, 197, and 
Robinson v. Touray,.and Maule 
v. Selwyn, were also cited. 
Mr. Attorney-general and Mr. 
Carr, for the defendants, contend- 
ed, that inasmuch as the Court of 
Exchequer chamber had founded 
itself almost entirely on the case 
ef Usparicha v. Noble, (which 
had been questioned in this Court, 
and if not denied had. at least 
been qualified), the reversal in 
that Court could only be consider- 
ed in the light of a contrary opi- 
nion; and then they contended 
that the decision in Mennett v. 
Bonham was the decision more 
consonant to the rules of law.— 
They did not deny that the Crown 
had the power to license a trade 
with an alien enemy, or for his 
benefit; but they contended that 
in this case the license did not 
convey any such privilege to the 
alien enemy ; and Sir Wm, Scott 
had held, that unless there were 
express words in the license au- 
