Case ID: us-ct-cl_37/html/0466-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nott, Ch. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

THE SCHOONER ULALIA. THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTORS OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. THE UNITED STATES. SARAH E. CONOVER, Administratrix, v. THE SAME.
    [French Spoliations,
    1332, 2513.
    Decided May 12, 1902.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The claimants show that the records of the French prize court which condemned the vessel have been destroyed. They produce, as evidence of the condemnation, a translation of the decree. The translation conies from the insurers, having been furnished to them by the owners, and on the faith of which they paid the insurance.
    I.The fundamental principle of the law of evidence is that a party shall produce the best evidence which the nature of the case admits of; and the rules of evidence are little more than applications of the principle.
    II. The best evidence of the condemnation of a vessel is the record of the tribunal. Showing that the records of the court have been destroyed, opens the door to secondary evidence.
    III. A translation of a decree in the French language is inferior to a literal copy; but if it appears that a literal copy does not exist the translation is admissible.
    
      The Reporters' statement of the case:
    The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
    I. The schooner Ulalia, James Clifton master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about the 8th day of April, 1798, from Philadelphia bound to Para, in Brazil, with liberty to touch at Cayenne, French Guiana. While peacefully pursuing said voyage on May 26,1798, the Ulalia was seized on the high seas by an armed crew in a boat from the French privateer La Nanette, Captain Baphet, then lying in the district of Sin-namary, and taken into Cayenne, where she was condemned on the 18th day of June, 1798, by the commercial tribunal of public arbitration at that place, whereby the said vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owners.
    
      The grounds of condemnation were:
    1. That the róle d’équipage was lacking in requisite formality. .
    2. That although the clearance was to Cayenne and other French ports, Spanish and Portuguese ports are also mentioned in it, “the latter of which are enemies of France.”
    3. Because it appeared from the manifest that there were goods on board of the nature of those prohibited by the French law of the 10th of Brumaire, 5th year (November 13, 1797).
    4. At an adjourned meeting of the tribunal on June 24, 1798 (5th Messidor, year 6), the decree of confiscation of the vessel and cargo was reaffirmed for the additional reason that there was found on board a personal passport from the Portuguese minister resident in Philadelphia to the supercargo, permitting him to prosecute his voyage to Para.
    II. The Ulalia was a duly registered vessel of the United-States of 64 tons burthen: was built in Washington County, Pa., in the year 1790, and was owned by John Reed and Standish Forde, doing business as Reed & Forde, residents of Philadelphia and citizens of the United States, of whom John Reed was the surviving partner.
    III. The cargo was owned by Peter Tilly, Robert P. Bail, and David Callaghan, citizens of the United States, to whom the owners of the vessel gave a charter party dated March 2o, 1798, for the freight or hire of 300 Spanish milled silver dollars per month, to continue until the return of the vessel, unless captured, in which event the freight was to be computed to the time of the loss.
    IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Ulalia and caigo were as follows:
    The value of the vessel. $2,244.00
    The freight earnings. 1, 066. 66
    The value of the cargo. 4, 606.00
    Premium of insurance paid on actual value of cargo. 1,561. 80
    Amounting in all to. 9,478.46
    Y. On March 29, 1798, David Callaghan, in his own name and for the other owners of the cargo, effected insurance on the same in the office of the president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America in the sum of §6,690 on the cargo and $600 on the freight of said vessel at a premium cost to them of 30 per cent.
    Thereafter, on the 19th dajr of November, 1798, the .said president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America paid the said assured on the cargo $6,690, and on the freight of said voyage $600, in full as and for a total loss thereon, said cargo being* overinsured $2,084.
    VI.The loss to said Need & Forde, owners of the vessel, by reason of said capture and condemnation, was as follows:
    The value of the vessel. 52, 244. 00
    VII.The loss to the Insurance Company of North America was as follows:
    Insurance paid on cargo, less overinsurance.§4,606. 00
    Insurance paid on freight. 600. 00
    Amounting in all to. 5,206. 00
    VIII. John Reed, surviving partner of Reed & Forde, on December 12, 1807, made an assignment to Joseph Ball and William Page, of Philadelphia, for the benefit of creditors.
    IX. The claimant herewith, Sarah E. Conover, has produced letters of administration upon the estate of John Reed, the surviving partner of Reed & Forde, and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the person whose estates she represents as administratrix is the same person who suffered loss through the seizure and condemnation of the Ulalia as set forth in the preceding findings.
    
      Mr. Leonard Myers for the claimants.
    
      Mr. John W. Tramar (with whom was Mr. Charles W. Ptcssell and Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Pradt) for the defendants.
   Nott, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The question which arises in these and in a number of cases is, whether the claimants have proved the condemnation of their vessels in a French prize court by competent evidence.

The fundamental principle of the law of evidence is that a party shall produce the best evidence which the nature of the case admits of. The rules of evidence are little more than applications of this principle.

The best evidence of a decree of condemnation is the record of the tribunal. In these cases the claimants have shown to the satisfaction of the court that the records of the French courts have been destroyed. This opens the door to secondary evidence.

The best secondary evidence of a written instrument is a copy. At this time, after the lapse of a hundred years, it does not appear and can not be shown that a copy exists, and the claimants produce, instead of a literal copy, a translation. A translation is a kind of copy — inferior to that of a literal copy, but still a copy of the thought and meaning of the original, expressed in another language, and the question here is whether this translation is admissible to establish the general fact of condemnation.

The course of business and the usage of merchants and insurers at the time of the capture of these vessels was that the master brought home a copy of the decree of condemnation and of his own protest, both in the French language, which he deposited with his owners. The owners then had translations made and certified, which they gave to their insurers, exhibiting doubtless, for inspection if desired, the original in the French language. These translations now before the court come from the proper source, the business custodians; that is to say, from the office of the insurers. Being ancient documents, so found, they prove themselves. The verity of the translation, moreover, is shown by the fact that the parties mutually treated it as a true translation of an authenticated decree, the one paying the insurance on the faith of it, and the other making a total abandonment of the vessel or cargo, or both, to the insurers. If these long-past transactions were contemporaneous with the prosecution of these cases, the claimants would, of course, be obliged to call the owners as witnesses to produce or show the loss of the copies of the decrees, arid then to call the translator to prove his translation. After this lapse of years those prerequisites of ordinary cases are, of course, impossible. The claimants have, therefore, produced the best evidence which the nature of the case now admits of, and the fact that the parties acted upon the faith of the translations is the highest moral evidence of its veritju The underwriters paid away thousands upon thousands of dollars to the owners of these captured vessels at a time when all of the circumstances of each case were easily susceptible of verification, and wo may rest assured that business men having full knowledge of their rights and responsibilities would not have done so without having before them irrefutable evidence of their own liabilities.

The order of the court is that this case be reported to Congress, together with a copy of this opinion.