The Express.
London, England, 1855-02-10 00:00:00

(MAHAN P. THE VAN LAND CONPANT.-NZW

SiLLAL.
Mr. Justice Coleridge said that the court, after hearing
the arguments la this case, thought there should be a new
trial. As all the learned judges had not agreed oa the
grounds for a new trial, wrist he had said mutt be taken as
nil own opinion. As the new trial could not come on before
next term, their lordships would, ter the assistance of the
judge who was to try the cause, end to agree upon
the grounds, audit so they would intimate them.

ADMIRALTY COURT.-FEB. 9.

111VOL1 w LlThassm.-__
THI
This was the first of a group known in the court as Mr.
Sorensen's cases. The Baltic& had sailed from Libau for
Leith with a cargo of hatred, her last port of departure
being Copenhagen, which she left on the 21st of May. She
'whet' Leith on the 29th, and was seised by the Custom-
house officers on the 31st. A claim had been put in on be-
half of Mr. Sorensen, the owner, alleging that he was a
Dime, and that no Russian subject had any interest in the
ship. The case was first argued in August last, and the
coati ordered further proof on the three following points—
' First, the date of the ship's sailing from Liban; secondly,
as to the bill of sale, and the circumstances of the purchase,
and, thirdly, as to the residence and national character of
, the cleimaot.
The Queen's Advocate now submitted that the further pad
had entirely failed, and that the ship meet be condemaed.
In the first place there was a complete deficiency of Danish
papers amongst those found on board the vessel. By the
ordinance issued by the Danish government in the year
1803, the papers which ships belonging to that country were
expected to carry were particularly and precisely stated.
There most be • certificate, a bill of sale, and the royal
pass in Latin, headed with the Danish urns. That ordi-
nance bed been revived by letters patent issued by the go-
vernment of Denmark on the 20th of April, 1861; and yet
this vessel, although she had left Copenhagen a month later
than that date, had got neither that set of papers nor any-
thing resembling them. The master stated in his affidavit
that he bad not got the Latin sea pass on board when
his Taal was seised, but that one had since been
sent to the Danish consul at Leith, although he
(the master) had not seen it. The master could not even say
by whose authority it bad been granted ; but he added
that when he left Copenhagen the general order as to papers
had not been issued. That he (the learned advocate) could
not believe. On the 4th interrogatory the master said he
bad been appointed by Mr. Christianson, by direction of
Mr. Sorensen, whom he saw for the first time oath. 18th of
May ; and yet in the interim admeasurement bill, which
was dated the 31st of March, it was stated that 'the vessel
was commanded by Hans Andersen Pyglestran, the pre-
sent master,who swore that he had en the owner, or
got possession of the ship, until the 18th of May. He (the
learned gentleman) would be pled to know where the vessel
was lying when that admeasurement bill was issued. if
at Copenhagen, why had Mr. Sorensen suppressed
the fact? Indeed, the account given of several of
the papers was extremely flimsy. The next point
in the we was the alleged purchase of the ship
by Mr. Sorensen, jun., from his father, who was undoubt-
edly a Russian subject; although it was perhaps going to
be contended by his learned friends that that gentleman
being a consul in a foreign country still retained his Danish
domicile, although he bad lived in that foreign country for
between 20 and 30 years. The son, then, was a person of
questionable nationality; the vessel, at the time of sale,
was in a Russian port ; and the purchaser was at Hamburg.
Not a shilling of tte purchase-money had passed—the docu-
ments spoke of it as paid. It was said that the father had
originally contemplated a gift to his son, but that oa con-
sulting his bather-in-law he had determined that such a
mune would not be fair to his other children ; and the son
was therefore to pay his father for this and other vessels.
The father died in May, and arrangements were made for
paying over the purchale-money for the benefit of the
family ; but the father himself had received an equi-
valent. It was suggested that the sea had 2,0001. in his
father's hands, about; a tenth part of the value of the ships ;
but that sum was to be retained, and that then a part of
the earnings of the:vessels sboald;be paid in liquidation of the
purchase-money. Anything like a parting with the ships
had n taken place in the lifetime of the father, and it
the vessels were restored they would go to benefit the
estate of Mr. Sorensen, an.. of in fast the enemy's estate.
Mr. Sorensen, jun , bad ben living in London for two
years, and if the ships had really been transferred to him
they ought to have assumed the British and not the Danish
floe.
Dr. Lushington said that Mr. Sorensen, having lived here
for two years, was • British subject. That was an indium- ,
table fact in the case.
The Queen's Advocate proceeded to remark that Mr.
Sorensen, jun., had met his father at an inn at Hamburg
in March last. Mr. Sorensen alleged that on that occasion
his father told him that as war was expected soon to break
out, he as well es other shipowners had determined to dispose
of their ',teak. He then offered to let his son have his ships
on favourable terms. Mr. Sorensen, jun., agreed to give a
certain price for them, and it was alleged that the sale was
irrevocably made. But were those ships earning money
between that time and May, and if so, under whose orders ?
In point of fact, Mr. &reuse had not purchased the pro-
perty, he bad only been intending to purchase it. Mr.
Sorensen, sea., had continued in trade till the time of his
death, and there was not a scrap of evidence to show that
he did not preserve to the last a beneficial interest in the
yawn, and transmit it to his family in Russia. Did Mr.
Sorensen, jan., ensure the ship, or address a single letter to
the masters or agents? Certainly he had never acted
as owner in the ease of the Bahia. In the case of
the Boglasie it bad been held that there could not be a
sale in transitu. Was the court satisfied that such a sale had
net taken place in the present caw? He challenged his
learned friends to cite a case in which a man was allowed
te call himself the owner of a vessel, although it turned
eat that from the date of the purchase, in the month of
March, down to the month of May, when he put his master
I. possession, flagrante hello, he had never acted as owner ?
It was urged that Mr. Sorensen, jun., had opened a count- '
leg-house in Altoona in March last; but he could not divest
himself of his British domicile by an act like that. It had
been said that he had a good business in London, and cer-
tainly if he bad accumulated 2,0001. in two years that must
have been the CLIP. But • good business was not parted
with in a day; and many English merchants no doubt bad
counting-home at Alton*. There was not a tittle of evi-
donee that he was in Denmark before the Bth of March, and
the alleged sale had taken place on the 6th. He (the Queen's
Advocate) hoped, therefore, that the court would be of opi-
nion that the further proof had failed, and wouldlproceed
condemn the vessel.
The Admiralty Advocate and Dr. Bayford also addressed
the mkt on behalf of the crown.
Dr. Addams said, that if the court was of opinion, as it
had intimated, that Mr. Soreneen,i jun., was a neutral
subject, the only question that remained would be, whether
there had been a bona fide transfer to him. Even his father
could not be considered altogether a Russian. He was •
native of Flensburg, and in 1826 he had gone to reside at
Libau, where he continued as Danish consul until the time
of his death. He should, therefore, have contended that
the son was Danish born ; bet he had already been admitted
to be a neutral.
The Queen's Advocate said he had argued that Mr.Boren-
sen had falsely claimed as a Dane, being really a British
subject.
Dr. Addams—Then it would be impossible to show that
he was a Dane. His father owed no permanent allegiance
to Russia. and his resideace at Libau would not make his
children Russian subjects, any more than the children of
Englishmen born in Russia. The place of birth had
nothing whatever to do with domicile of origin. This
being the case, was it any wonder that Mr. Sorensen, sen.,
at his time of life, in his then state of health, and in
the prospect of war, should be anxious to transfer his ships
to his son ? The probability was that he would have retired
from business evea if no war had broken out; for he had
acquired a large property, and he was attached to hie
country. On the other hand, could any demonism* be
less likely than that so highly respectable a person should
lend himself to a fraud in order to defeat the bellige-
rent rights of this country ? In the present case there had
- nt sale and e payment of the money. It was
for the vendor to say in what :way the purchase-money
should be paid; and there was no reason whatever for be-
Having that the transfer had not ban bona fide.
The Court said that, in ordering further proof, Its object
had been twofold. First, it had ordered farther proof of
the date the vessel had left Libau, in order to ascertain
whether it had been purchased as an enemy's ship in an
enemy's port ; and also whether it bad been purchased in
traneite. It had, is the second case, ordered farther
proof of Mr. Sorensen's nationality, because, if it should
turn out that he was not entitled to claim as a Dane, it
might be • question whether, having wrongly claimed in
that character, the valet could be restored to him although
still a neutral?
Dr. Addams thought that it would be &monstrous propo-
sition to bold that, because a claimant had been in error as
to the strictly legal nationality which he possessed, he
should be deprived of his rights as a neutral. He must,
however, contend, that though Mr. Sorensen had acquired
an English domicile; yet when be went to Altons, and pro-
cured his admission as a burgher of that town, he reverted
to his original domicile. Ile (Dr. Addams), therefore,
trusted that the court would order the vessel to be restored.
Dr. Lushington desired Dr. Mill, the other counsel in
the ewe, to direct his attention particularly to two points—
first, the national character of Mr. Soreasen at the time of
his entering into the contract with hie father; for if he were
a British subject, the court would have to consider what
would be the law with respect to British subjects becom-
ing purchasers of vessels at a time when there was a rea-
sonable chance of war breaking out; secondly, mum*
this to have been a bins fide transaction, which had OF
curved in precisely the manner described by Mr. Sorensen,
and remembering that it was part of the contract that the
freights should be applied in liquidation of • debt due to
the eftate of Mr. Sorensen, sen., what would be the state
of the law, having reference, of course, to the decisions
which bed already taken place ?
Dr. Twiss accordingly applied himself to these points.
And first, with respect to Mr. Sorensen's nationality. Mr.
Sorensen, sen., had no doubt acquired by his trading at
Liban a Radian domicile, se far as commercial purpose,
were concerned. His eon was born at Libau, and had been
principally educated there. He bad, however, visited his
relations in Denmark, and then could be no doubt that the

hird, considered itself a Danish tar _
was sent by his lather to London, wberehe
self as an agent, and he resided hers until the commence-
ment of 1851 He had, therefore, snaked for certain pur-
poses a British domicils. In the meat% id March he went
to Altena,and opened a eoenting-hoses then; which he (Dr.
Twice) contended was evidence of sa salmis linquendi, u
fir as this country was concerned. But Wes 16 rosemary, in
order to re-auuire a Danish nationality, dim be &odd aban-
don his English domicile ? In the leading ewe el diseerville e.
Somerville (6 Veal), it wes admitted that although a per-
son could only have one testamentary and one matrimonial
domicile, be might have two domiciles for commercial pur-
poses. But leaving this point, he same nut to the cues.
Mon of whether the vessel had or bad not changed her
national character. It wee contended that she had been
sold in transits on her voyage frem Libau to Leith ; but it
had been held, over and over again, that even enemies'
vessels might be soil in an enemy's port, not being block-
aded. In this ease, the Baltica had been bought in time of
peace. No doubt, a vessel could not be sold on the high
seas, but in whatever character she left her port s►e must
also arrive at her destination.

tbo son
,ed bin-

Dr. Lusbington—The broad question is, whether the an-
ticipation of war would not be fatal to a sale like the
present.
Dr. Twits we. aware that Lord Stowell had expressed an
opinion to that effect; but his judgments on the point were
given under very special circumstances, arising out of the
Berlin and Milan decrees. They referred to the purchme
of enemy's colonial produce in the colonies; and they could
therefore bear no resemblance to the present eau.
Dr. Lushington—Don't destroy the authority of Lord
Stowell, Dr. Twits; or my stuck in trade will be gone, and
I shall have to declare myself bankrupt. (A laugh.)
Dr. Twits contended, finally, that although a certain sum
of money was to be paid by Mr. Sorensen for the support
of his mother and sisters, the interest of the latter was
merely an equitable one, and would not affect his rights as
owner. _ . . .

The reply on behalf of the seisors was postponed till
Tuesday week.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.-FEB. 9.
117011 0011/11716107E1 110LIOTD.
IN El N. CLAAL.

The bankrupt, a lamp mirchant and oilman, of West
Strand, applied for his certificate. His debts were 10,0001,
assets about 1,0001.
The assignees called attention to the fact that the expen-
diture was greatly in execs§ of the profits, and complained
that the bankrupt had traded recklessly.
Mr. Mottram, for the bankrupt, attributed the disas-
trous result of the trading to its having been carried on for
some time under inspectors. Two years ago the bankrupt
had 20s. in the pound, and the creditors had only themselves
to blame for the small amount of dividend. If any case
was calculated to show.the evil effect of arrangements, this
would do so. .

HIS Honour said he must decide the case without imput-
ing any blame to the inspectors, who were not there to
answer for themselves. The bankrupt, in 1852, finding
himself in difficulties, had called together his creditors,
who placed the business under inspection, and afterwards
took the management of it themselves. Subsequently new
inspectors were appointed,and the business was carried on
for some months longer under the management of the bank-
rupt. Eventually he stopped, and did what he had better
have done in July, 1852. In the majority of arrangements
of this kind, where there was not sufficient capital, it was
found impossible to bring the concern round, and bank-
ruptcy was the result. Here the estate was very much
worse than it would have been if wound up in 1852, and
the bankrupt had been kept in hot water for upwards of
two years. Considering that all he had done was done
under the eye of inspectors, and that, as regarded himself,
the case was one of unavoidable loss and misfortune, the
court would grant a certificate of the first class. It was
also to be observed that the bankrupt's personal expendi-
ture had been very moderate.