310 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



prosecution of a return voyage 

 from the port of Senegal to this 

 country, and carried to Barba- 

 (loes, where she was abandoned 

 by the captors. In the month 

 of May, 1816, a claim was given 

 in this Court by the Master, and 

 a monition was taken out against 

 the captor, to proceed to adjudi- 

 cation. He appeared under 

 protest, and in June, 1817, the 

 Court over ruled the protest, and 

 assigned the captor to appear 

 absolutely. 



Sir W. Scott. — This is a case 

 of a ship with a valuable cargo, 

 which was seized in the month 

 of April, 1814. Proceedings 

 were instituted in this Court in 

 the month of May, 1816. A 

 claim was given by the master, 

 and a monition issued against 

 the captor, calling upon him to 

 proceed to adjudication. He 

 appeared under protest which 

 came before the Court in an act 

 on petition in the month of June, 

 1817. Two grounds were at- 

 tempted to be established in the 

 protest — 1st, that the captor was 

 justifiable ; and, 2nd, that restitu- 

 tion had long since been made 

 to the owners. If circumstances 

 excite a just and reasonable sus- 

 picion, although they may not 

 lead ultimately to condemnation, 

 the Court will always protect the 

 captor ;but, if a sufficient ground 

 for the seizure is not shown, and 

 injury ensues, the person who 

 causes that injury must in justice 

 bear its weight ; or if the captor 

 can show that restitution has been 

 accepted by the claimant, the 

 Court will hold the latter to have 

 acquiesced in the arrangement, 

 and consider him as bound by it ; 



but the Court was of opinion, 

 that neither of those grounds in 

 the protest had been sustained. 

 It was asserted, that by her sails 

 she had the appearance of an 

 American ship, and that there 

 was no manifest of the cargo; 

 but papers were produced which 

 left no rational doubt as to the 

 port from which she sailed, and 

 the port of destination. With 

 respect to the want of manifest 

 and clearance, the master says, 

 there was no custom-house, and 

 the captor might have supposed 

 that this was the fact, as he 

 hardly would have left any port 

 with so valuable a cargo had 

 there been the means of obtaining 

 those documents. If the captors 

 disbelieved this, they should have 

 shown that a custom-house did 

 exist in that port. With respect 

 to the restitution, he had no right 

 to take the vessel at all to Barba- 

 does, unless there had been strong 

 grounds for suspicion. The Court 

 is always ready to make allow- 

 ances for convoying vessels. 

 When they make captures, a 

 practice which, although per- 

 mitted, is very much discouraged, 

 they should put things into the 

 most convenient forms. The 

 captor might have resorted to 

 any of those measures which 

 have been suggested in argument 

 without the hazard of such great 

 loss. At Barbadoes a sort of 

 restitution takes place, but is it 

 done without sufficient attention? 

 The vessel is left, and the master 

 remains in gaol, and protests 

 against the seizure, declaring that 

 he will not sign any paper to 

 relieve the captor from the re- 

 sponsibility. The Court decided, 



that 



