614 APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 
* bond fide owners of said schooner; that no other person or persons own any interest 
therein. 
Wherefore he prays this honourable Court to be allowed to defend accordingly. 
(Signed) J. L. CARTHCUT. 
Sworn to and subseribed this 15th day of September, A. D. 1887. 
Before me, 
(Signed) H. EK. Haypon, 
Clerk, United States District Court. 
(By A. A. Mryer, Deputy Clerk.) 
[SEAL. ] 
(Signed) W. CLARK, Proctor for Claimant. 
22 Endorsed: H. No. 93. 2. United States v. schooner ‘“‘Sylvia Handy.” 
Claim. Filed the 19th September, 1887. H. E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. 
Meyer, Deputy Clerk. W. Clark, proctor for claimant. 
In the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. 
United States v. Schooner ‘Sylvia Handy.” 
No. 93.—Demurrer. 
At this time comes W. Clark, Esq., proctor for the claimant of the property pro- 
ceeded against in the above cause, and demurs to the libel of information filed herein. 
The said claimant, by protestation, not confessing all or any of the matters in the 
said information contained to be true, demurs thereto and says that the said matters 
in manner and form as the same are in said information stated and set forth are not 
sufficient in law for the United States to maintain their said action for the forfeiture 
of the property aforesaid, and that the said claimant is not bound by law to answer 
the same; wherefore the said claimant prays that the said information be dismissed, 
with costs. 
(Signed) W. Criark, Proctor for Owners. 
Endorsed: H. No.93. 3. United States v. schooner ‘‘Sylvia Handy.” Demurrer. 
Filed the 19th September, 1887. H.E. Haydon, Clerk, by A. A. Meyer, Deputy Clerk. 
W. Clark, proctor for claimants. 
In the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. 
United States v. Schooner “Sylvia Handy.” 
No. 93.—Answer of James L. Carthcut, Master and Part Owner. 
And now comes James L. Carthcut, claimant as aforesaid, and for answer to the 
libel of information filed herein says: 
1. He admits that M. A. Healy was an officer of the United States Revenue Marine 
Service, duly commissioned, and that he was at the time the property proceeded 
against herein was seized in command of the United States revenue-cutter ‘‘ Bear,” 
and on official duty at the time the said seizure was made, and was then and there 
duly commissioned and authorized by the proper Department of the United States 
to make said seizure, but denies that said seizure was made within the waters of 
Alaska Territory or within the Civil and Judicial District of Alaska, or in any por- 
tion of Behring’s Sea belonging to the United States, or upon any other waters 
belonging to libellants navigable from the sea by vessels of 10 tons or over. 
2. Denies that said vessel, her captain, officers, and crew, were then and there 
found engaging in killing fur-seals within the limits of Alaska Territory, or in the 
waters thereof, or that they were then and there violating any Law of the United 
States. 
3. Denies that on the 2nd day of September, A. D. 1887, any other person or per- 
sons did then and there, under the direction and authority of the said James L. 
Cartheut or any other person or at all, kill any fur-seal within the District of Alaska, 
or in the waters thereof. 
4. Denies that the property proceeded against in this cause or any portion thereof 
ever became forfeited to the United States. Wherefore the said claimant prays that 
