272 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



pose of sending it to Norfolk, in 

 Virginia. On leaving the harbour 

 she was seized by his Majesty's 

 ship Emulous, for a breach of the 

 navigation laws, in exporting 

 Jamaica logvvood to America, 

 and confiscated. 



Sir Wm. Scott. — This is an 

 appeal from a sentence of confis- 

 cation, which has been pro- 

 nounced against this vessel, for 

 exporting an article forming a 

 very small part of the cargo, con- 

 trary to the provisions of the 

 navigation laws, which prohibits 

 the exportation of fustic and 

 other dyeing woods, from the 

 British West India Islands to 

 America. Much has been said 

 as to the policy of the prohibi- 

 tions in this particular, but it is 

 no part of my duty to controvert 

 that policy ; for, if by change of 

 circumstances it has become in- 

 convenient, an application to the 

 Legislature is the only remedy 

 for that inconvenience. My 

 office is purely ministerial. It is 

 argued, that the quantity is so 

 small, that it would be a great 

 hardship if the question was 

 pressed to its greatest extent 

 against the claimant. If the 

 maxim, de minimis non curat lex, 

 could be applied to the present 

 question, the Court would, per- 

 haps, be justified in mitigating 

 the severity of the law ; but the 

 quantity of the prohibited article 

 seems not to be exactly ascer- 

 tained ; and although it has been 

 stated on the part of the owners 

 to be only 3 tons, j^et from the 

 evidence it appears to have been 

 much greater, and therefore can- 

 not be considered to come under 

 the beneficial scope of the maxim 

 to which I have alluded. If a 

 practice so abusive prevails as 



that every sliip is in the habit of 

 carrying out several tons of this 

 prohibited article, it is high time 

 that this Court should lend its 

 assistance to put a stop to such 

 illegal proceedings. It has been 

 said that owners are obliged to 

 import wood for dunnage ; if the 

 fact be so, it may be a proper 

 subject for the consideration of 

 the Legislature ; but when it 

 becomes a practice to put a 

 quantity of an article on board 

 with no other authority than their 

 own, and to baptize it dunnage, 

 it is high time for this Court to 

 interfere in conduct so contrary 

 to the prohibitory laws of this 

 country. Much has been said 

 with respect to the absence of 

 fraudulent intention, but it is 

 sufficient if there exists a conti-a- 

 vention of the law, from whatever 

 cause it arises. There is sufficient 

 to justify the seizure, if that has 

 been exported which the law has 

 prohibited. Something also arises 

 from the evidence which has the 

 appearance of intentional con- 

 cealment, not very favourable to 

 the case of the owners. It is not 

 then protected by its own insig- 

 nificance. Neither has it any 

 analogy with the licence cases 

 that have been cited. During 

 the time of war, the prohibition 

 to trade with the enemy is 

 general. Licences were granted 

 for the purposes of relaxing that, 

 without any regard to the nature 

 of the articles. They were spe- 

 cified in the licence according to 

 the application which was made. 

 A licence for the importation of 

 one article would have been as 

 readily granted as that for 

 another ; but, in this instance, 

 the law saj's, you shall not carry 

 such and such articles to Ame- 

 rica. 



