The Express.
London, England, 1848-02-17 00:00:00

obeyed by them. The plsintiff complained that the defen-
dant had dispoeseesed hinter certain slaves and goods at the
Gallium, and the attention of the jury would be confined
in the consideration of the case to the slaves and the goods.
The destruction of the barracoons forms no part of the pre-
sent inquiry, and the law did not allow of it, for it formed
the foundation of a local investigation, and not a transitory
cause of action. That must be decided, if at all, by the law
of the country where that trespass was committed, and with
it the jury here assembled had nothing whatever to do. The
first question raised by the evidence was for how much of
the transactions on the 19th, and the seven days subsequent,
on which the expedition was on shore, the defendant was
personally liable. On the part of the plaintiff, ewe Spanish
witnesses and a sailor had given such evidence as would
lead the jury reesonably to infer that the defendant was
responsible for all that bad taken place, for they
stated that he had forcibly landed, had placed
sentries over the property of the plaintiff, in
order to take hostile possession of it, all for his
purposes, and had removed the slaves and destroyed the
pods. When it further appeared that he had done all this
by means et an armed force which was acting under his com-
mand, he would certainly be liable at least for the 300 slaves
so taken from the phOotiff, and the goods, which bad been
estimated at a very large sum. When, however, the jury
came to apply this to, and contrast it with, the testimony
COURT OF EXCHEQUER. given on the part of the defend.tht, the ease is materially
Trial at Bar.-Before Barons Parke, Alderson, Rolfe, and Platt. altered. It there seems that the sentries were placed at the
HURON V. THE HON. JOSEPH DENMAN. warehouses indeed, but more to protect them from plunder
At the titling of the court yesterday morning, Mr. Martin than u a means of taking possession of them, and it would
he for thejury to say how that was, for it would materially
put in the bill of lading and invoice of the Crawford. The
affect the damages. If the defendontts account of the pro-
invoice was dated Havana, April 1, 1840, and the bill of lad-
ing Feb. 12, 1840. ceedings be correct, and that the goods were taken
away by the natives, whom be permitted so to deal with the
The ease for the defendant having closed on Tuesday, property there found, but not on his account, he would not be
Mr. M. D. Hill now rose to reply on the whole evidence.
By the kindness of the lea: coed judges on the previous evening, liable for the destruction and loss which ensued; but if the
jury thought that he allowed all that to he done by the na-
the evidence had been examined, and the issues raised by the tivea as his aeento, and with Ids express coneurreuce, then
pleadings had been simplified, with which the jury would he would be amble to the plaintiff. It was suggested that
have ultimately to deal. The case was now, he rejoiced to some of the goods had been destroyed when the barracoons
say, ripe for the jury. It was not now contended that the were tired, but it was answered that in some of them there
act of the defendant was justified except a' one done under
were no goods at all when the
the authority of the King Siacha; and also, that thoughthey were fired ; but of that the
jury would j'idge. At any rate, on this part of the cause
not justified, the defendant was protected, on the ground there was a fair case made out with respect to the taking of
that whet he did was an act of state; that it was by command the 300 slaves, for they escaped, and being brought back,
of the Queen, in other words; and that whether the act was had been taken away by the defendant and utterly lost to
right or Intone. whether perfectly blameless, or one tn- the plaintiff. Of that there was reasonable evidence, on the
volving the mdlt flagrant violation of the law of nations, plea of not guilty, to fix the defendant with a liability in re-
the defendant was protected from all rtsponsibility elect of 300 slaves, and if it should be material to go any
Such are the positions assumed by the defendant, farther into that matter, there was evidence to show that
in the conduct of his defence. On the part of the plaintiff, their value was 60 dollars or 101. a head. The next plea
it must be admitted to be now quite clear that he was free was " not possessed," on which the burden of proof lies on the
from legal blame in establishing himself at the Gallinas as a plaintiff. There is no doubt that the goads and
deate-trader. He was there in the position of an English- the slaves both were lawfully in his possession,
man before 1807, when he also might have so tea ted. It
though the point was taken by the Attorney-General, that
follows then that the plaintiff's claim for compensation is to
he ceuld not be lawfully possessed of slaves anywhere. The
be examined just as if he were an Englishman, and not a whole court is of opiiiion that there is nothing in that objec-
foreigner. The learned gentleman then vindicated himself lion, for the law was quite settled by Sir Wm. Scott, in the
from the imputation of the Attorney-General, that he had cove of the Louis, in 1817, ;when that learned civilian laid
opened the case of the plaintiff with a want of candour and
fairness, and having so done proceeded to Casette& the down four propositions, in which all the profession and all
nations have since acquiesced. That cue decided, firstly,
facts se proved on both sides as applicable to that the slave trade was not piracy by the law of nations,
' the questions now alone remaining on the record, and could only be so made by private treaty. Secondly, that
He would recall the attention of the jury to the dates accost- it was not even a crime against the law of nations, for though
paying those acts. The first act done by the defendant was repressed by some it was legilised by others. That case,
theo esNgoz..l.9p,ikwehdeanttuhe.eaboconoesn.oof,thanedptlaihentsitoff
rewhe,,reusdesesatied
tnythat, thirdly,peace decided
cannot
beltohnagt twhearingyhntaotifosnto,psg
except
and
tby search tiitthime of
that
place taken possession of and so retained till the termination nation to which the ship searched belongs; and fourthly, that
of the expedition, and until the slaves were returned from though the law of • country may be opposed te toe slave
the bush by the natives, their possession being the main de- trade, it belongs to no foreign nation to punish it in A native
sign of the expedition, though Fry Norman might be the of that country. Those are the great propositions there este-
ostensible object. It was also proved that the gunpowder blished,and subject to them the question i i whether the plain-
was destroyed and the vpirita started long before the alleged tiff has here made out a right of action against the
treaty was Armed with King Siacha. On this there is no defendant. Now it was not nett teary for the court so give
conflict of opinion whatever. All the warehouses were fired any opinion whether it was lawful or not for a Spanish sub-
but that at Dombocorro before the treats', and that was only jest to possess slaves lawfully in Spain, for the plaintiff,
reserved as a receptacle for the reliased slaves, and for though a Spaniard, was at the time in question Herbst; at the
the protection of the men engaged in the expedition. Gallinao, where undoubtedly slavery was allowed by law.
Thus far for the events before the treaty. With reference to He was there entitled by law to the possession of slaves, and
that treaty the plea of the defendant had been amended aud- the defendant had no right to take them away simply. There
denly on the previous nigh, and it was the duty of the plain- was no evidence of each a law in Spain prohibiting the
tiff's counsel to contend with it as amended, not at therequest peuession of slaves by the subjects of Spain in all
of the AttoruerGeneral, but at the suggestion of the countries, as the queen was bound by her treaty to peas
Court. Of this, said the learned gentleman, Ido not coot- within two months. We cannot presume its existence,
plain ; for I have no doubt that it emanated but from one and the whole court, therefore, thinks that there must he a
desire, that, namele, of securing the fair and proper ad- verdict for the plaintiff, on the plea of not possessed. The
inisaion of justice, in which all frequenting Eng IA courts next iesue for the consideration of the jury was that raised
were deeply interested. The plea, as originally framed, by the plea eating up tee treaty with King Siacha, and jus-
justified the conduct of the defendant under the authority laying the sets of the defendant undo r the authority of 'hat
of the King as an absolute monarch. That was not proved treaty. This, with that plea which justifies the acts of the
by the evidence ; and it now alleged that the treaty was defen.lant as done under the command of the Queen, are no
made by the authority of the King and the principal doubt the great and all-ia portent points in the case. The
chiefs or " groat men " of the Wilhite'. Now the plea which asserts the right of the defendant to di-possess
plea so amended was not supported more than was the plaintiff of his property because it coosiatt-d of slaves
the original plea. The treaty purports to be be- may be dismissed at once, as also that singular one which
tween King Siacha alone and the English, though says that the Gsllistas was a country without any law at all;
It required the signature and consent of the great men ; but and that therefore the defendant, as a free man, hod a right
there is no proof that the King assented to the treaty, though to set the leaves free, the fact being clearly established that
the Prince Manna professes to sign it on account of his there were laws in Gallinu. Wo come then to the
father. All we know of him is, that he did not come when consideration of the two remaining defences on this
requested to do so by the defendant, and that he was ill. record, which arc certainly the most important of all ;
But it' he had come, and did know of the treaty, that treaty and the principal question on the second el there will be
does not have the effect of a law of that country, which bad whether so much of the acts of the defendant as were done
laws suet • parliament, though a humble imitation of one, by him in taking the slaves and goods was protected. It is
which sat at Ghindamar, and discussed affairs of atate. There not pretended by the crown that there was any command to
was no proof of a meeting of the aristocracy, by whom, do these acts prior to their commission. No instructions
with the Kiser, the country is governed. The plea, there- have been produced, and it may be infi rred that if they con-
fore, is not proved in either form by the evidence ; but pined any such command they would hove been presented
there is one point which will, as it appears to me, put to youreonsideration. It may be it-leveed therefore that there
the case for the defendant, on this plea, quite out of court was no previous authority from the Queen to do these acts
It has been shown that there was a seizure and deatruction which are here complained of. The plea rusts, however, on
before the treaty ; but the treaty itself does not justify or the subsequent raefication which is set up as equivalent to •
authorise the seizure and destruction by the defendant. Tbe prior command in law. Now as for as the rights of indi-
treaty shows that the power to seize and take away the goods victuals are concerned, the law laid dOwn this maxim :
of the plaintiff was given by the defendant to the King, e. Omnis ratihabitio re'rohabitur et priori mandato moque
authorising him to seize, burn, and destroy, instead of the paratur." In other words, a subsequent ratification of an
reverse. The supplemental article proves this, and is in fact act when done is equal to a couimand to do that set. If an
an authority from the defendant to the King to take the act be done in the quality of an agent, it matterednoterhether
goods and remove them to Gendimar, or some other place in the authority he given before (wafter the set done. In either
the interior. So much then for the treaty ; but the defend- case the remedy would be against the principal, not the agent;
ant rests his defence mainly on the authority of the Queen. and with some few exceptions it maw be said the general rule
We deny it. It is conceded that there was no prior coot- was that now Laid dewn as applicable to the present inquiry.
mend; but the Attorney General relics on a subsequent rati• Now the defence here set up is, that the defendant did not
Ration, which, he contended, has a retrospective operation. do these acts as of his own bend and on his private account,
Supposing that to be so, still, I contend, that a subsequent but as an agent of the state, and that those acts having been
ratification will noteupport this plea. The ref ihabirio, known subsequently ratified by that state he is absolved from all
to the Roman law was never used for the protection ofthe agent responsibility, and the remedy of the plaintiff, if any, is
except when the right to do the act done existed in the against the state. On this point you must be satisfied that
principal at the time of doing it. Like all fictions, it is the defendant did not act of his own head, but on behalf of
founded ea justice, and the power to do the thing in the the crown under which he hold • commission, and in the
principal may be vouched by the agent. The defence here discharge of his duty as its officer. On this there vase's it
it not of such a character, it is put forward, not to show that would appear, ample evidence that the defendant acted at
the thing might be properly cone, but to shelter the doer the suggestion of Governor Doherty, his superior officer, by
from inquiry and responsibility. The allegation of a Cora- whom he was instructed to rescue the woman, Fry Norman,
mand cannot be proved by a ratification. f bat may make and her child, though he may have had the further design,
this an act of state as contended fur, but I am not called on when he proceeded to carry nut those 'orders, of doing the acts
to argue or dispute that proposition. I contend that • now complained of. That being so, then eomesthe question of
ratification does not amount to a command, as alleged in the subsequent ratification, and whether it amounts to a prior
plea. command. My three learned brethren are clearly of opinion
Baron Parke : The court thinks that the subsequent rati- that the ratification here proved *mounted to • prior corn•
fication, if it were equivalent to a prior command, may be mend, and I salient to that opinion, but not without some
given in evidence, under • plea of a prior command. You doubt; for if that be so a totally different character is given
must not, therefore, consider yourself relieved from arguing to the proceedings of the time. The remedy of the plaintiff
the admissibility of such evidence, fur we wish to have that for those acts is totally changed by such oitb.i.cquent ratifies.-
question discussed. tion, and I therefore hesitate on the subject. At the same
Mr. Hill : The first education would be whether there is time my doubts do not warrant me in absolutely differing
any ratification at all to proof. There has not been any from that position, end it must therefore be taken to be the
certainly made known publicly to the Queen of Spain on the low that the acts of the defendant, if ratified by the crown
part of the Queen of England, though there may have been afterwards, are pretected. Now, there is abuudant evidence
e. private ratification conveyed to the defendant personally. of ratification lay Lords Palmerston end John Russell, for.
It was hinted yesterday that there was a public ratification on receiving the despatches of Sir Rice art Doherty and of
in the Appropriation Act, and the aunt of 7,0001., a portion the defendant, those ministers expreastd their approbate oto
of which was devoted to the defendant and his men. ltdoes the latter, though it may not have been publicly made
not appear that there was any debate or intimation of its ob. known. It has been urged that the crown can
ject to the House of Lords, and that amounts to nothing, only speak by its great seal, and that there wanted
therefore. But was there any ratification at all ? I say, some such signal proof of ratification ; but we are
none whatever. What are the facts? Captain Denman all entirely at opinion that tl:e ratification may be by
had taken possession of a part of King Sisebeste dig writing simply, especially as the command to do these acts
minions, and had destroyed the property of one owing that would have been sufficient in that form. Thin it is argued
King temporary allegiance. He summons to his presence that the ratification is inoperative because the crown did not
the King and the nobles to a spot where they might know of these proceedings before the treaty was made; but
witness his power; and he there dictates • treaty that depends on the fact whether the
the defe
sentries ndant
ille touk uts-
or
to this black chieftain. Where is the representatien Mon of the property by mans of gally.
of these acts? There is none to the crown whatever in whether he merely stationed those motile" as guerds to pro-
evidence, and if none, there can be no ratification therefore. tect the property from being stolen. If he acted in the
The letter of Lord John Russell, in which he speaks of her latter view we think that if all the acts were fairly commu-
' tion on the part of the crown of England. Lord John quent ratification will protect them ; and if any part of the
Majesty's ministers and government, is no sufficient ratifica. 'Opted to Sir It. Doherty and to the government, the aubse-
Russell is not the Queen, and if his letter is a ratification of acts were so protected the defendant iv entitled to a verdict,
the defendant's act, it gives a emus belli to the Queen of ae
Spain. It ratifies acts not borne out by the treaty, which have according to the form of the plea, the plaintiff ought to
me Us w assiened if he went for any thing not within that
only gave to us a limited power and right over the subjects protection. It was urged for the defendant that the Appro.
of the Queen of Spain. It may lie unlawful to sell goods in priation A t itself amounted to a ratification ; hut the
Lon 'on for the slave trade, but if it be publicly done, that court thinks it sloes not, for the House of Commons,
would not jastify any man in entering the shops and destroy- in which alone it was discussed, is no part of the executive
ing the geode there exposed for thas illegal purpose. So it government. On the question whether the acts of the
is with the treaty molting it illegal for Spaniards to deal in i defendant have been fairly communicated to the government,
slave a-and if this court were now to hold that the defend- it is at etveary to advert to the letter of the defendant, which,
ant's acts had been ratified, the gravest consequences might though uominally given in evidence, has yet not been read
ensue. The letter of Captain Denman to °overear to you. I will now read this letter to you, only premising
Doherty does not amount to any such represents. that you must not take it as proof of what it contains, but
tion as would bear out the plea of ratification, only consider it with reference to the question whether that
It may be admitted that the eiefendaut was ac- ems& fair communication or no of the acts of the defendant.
tuatcd by the pun st motives; but if the question be That le tee is as !Wino,. •
all inquiries regarding the slave trade, the plain- the
divested of the prejudices whelk naturally belong to lien Ntairievtifors.loo.rpdtuts'aynntereneL:.atikee.:ilat-hc7.f1a1,,..11144-5i.r,...-tiobaf ;ye
ihnisblaefulik proceedings at ealenao : lal the 19th, at daylight, I entered the river,
and, observing the Snuniards carrying off • large number of slaves
tdieff.
aewdou I 1
If
fbe t
heel eaprllayaitiff entitled
bad
bean
recover kin
from the factories i i their canoes, I chased them, and succeeded In
cattle, instead of black men—and the expression is used in mead,* shout %I. I then landed at Dombonorro, the futory nearest.
no mood of levity, but to illustrate the principles by which ton
he bar, where I awaited the arrival of the King totoreld con-
this cause ought to be decided—the cue would be undo- me, having previously daspatchcat • better to entering
the river.- No. I. Tour excellency will observe from the enclosures
fended. The plaintiff was committing no breach of any law of ~...,,,_ ,
___,_____,
_,___ _ oo _ _ __ _
cy ,
the land to which he owed any allegiance, and his claim is to ',11',..,17.--,;,,,L-,-,.1.7z---„,,,z;,„,„---,:,-.7-- .........‘"-.7.7...=17::
be decided to-day just as if it had arisen in Jamaica in 1800. and is hose Efforts were seconded by the fears of Prison Manna for the
I have now done my duty towards my client-with him my einuomenees of has conduct awards the wan sr, Nacsawf; At
relations now end, and I hope an I trust that I have dis.
12.45
A't‘lX;to2i:thhe oar of
of commtaation. arrived, with the Sierra
charged those relations fa arlessly and without reference _
._ _ _o e 0,_,...
„o_ _ 0__,,74,00.,,b,thnittb,,,,,..
to my own feelings. It now remains for you, g1i1d0w,w,h,,,......'"'r0f andJ'brii,,,w,`,:m`"'''''
his chiefs Kt tow., I ileanetched
gentlemen of the jury, to discharge your duty : the It tter numbered If, shortly after which the ',ilea arvivetl, la-
the only anxiety I now feel is for the pure and just adminim teadtzatehiefa, who la &elating this! lung Staab; was
(ration of the law of England on this occasion. I doubt not at ti ' boriesiden4= ap ; sal that Print* Manna was
'' rselves of your full< etaosiwered to act in his ?AWL Altar delivering your easel-
that you will faithfully and truly segue you ,
..
lettr, I
.........4
with
the
.i.ni...i.t.
wuteinctit
in
the
duty, notwithstanding the eloquent addreesof the Attorney-
letter of the 9th telnember, eigned by the King and the Rogers
General, and the appeal he made to your feelings. Your tuner. With regard to the blockade of their ports against sieve seat
predecessors in that box have not shrunk from awarding ..b, and th„l,,i. thy, suckgy,,i,d nu; be 0h0th,,,,,, oh,. 3,4,mh,„s
heavy damages, in former times, for similar reuses of action. of doe coast, they wive at once "wafted ; indeed they eltietetTntl felt an
The vitae of slaves bus been before now estimated in monies interest whatever upon these points, which lad been by the
influence of the white ,lave-diedera as a last re.ource. They admits ,
numbered ; anti I know that no considerations beyond those
ted that vi at no violin.). twat bad been molested within the bat year ; bul',
of justice and obedience to your oaths will be allowed to in- ,h.,. b.f., that
miod... had
i.e.n
emptied by a Betio,
brub....
flaenoe your verdict to-day. LOW tacos that •It •-' " -- --•- . • -..... ' .
The Attorney-General then claimed the right to reply ; ewesed 5t,,,,,
but, after some short discussion, he sat down, it being under. andst a that
no ar
mut m
stood that it was disalloe ed, them should
Mr. Baron Puke thea, as the senior judge, proceeded to had bi„ottgit, t
sum up the evidence to the jury. The cue, though long, for the i,..,,,..,.
yet rested in a narrow compass iii his opiaian, and it was inn three Ilewrs. 110,
possible for him to believe that the jury would not decide wehatever of them,
the points raised in the issues joined on this record without ottheie Mentrlatee s
any other feelings than a desire to do justice according to "he7,__Tet ote,_
the law of the land. Justice demanded that they should or yribr.,,,74rwt.i..
exercise the strictest impartiality on this important eccesicue been tromped o
and he doubted not that the demand of initial mould be poen; and

The objections to both elections have failed, end the petition
as to both must be dismissed, end the elections confirmed.—
Mr. Bothell asked for the costs of the respondents, but his
lordship was understood to answer that, sitting as visitor of
the college, be had no power to order payment of oats.
His lordship gave judgment in three other amnia!' ;
" Axe e. Andrews," " Lanraster v. Evora," end ' Glover
e. Hall," and affirmed the judgments of the courts below.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Nisi PRICK, GrILDN•I.I.-13efore Lord Daman cad Comma Juries.
The sittings in London commenced to-day. There wu an
entry of 14.5 causes, 86 of which were reinsures.
DINENLAIN V. THE MARCHIONESS OF CONTNOHIY.
The plaintiff, in this use, wee the keeper of the Hotel de
Provence, in Leicester-square, and he sought to recover
from the defendant the sum of 484. 12s. 6d. for debt, in-
curred under the following circumstances :—On the 17th of
March, 1847, the defendant, who had previously used the
house of the plaintiff, entered into an agreement with him
that he should supply htr with tea, supper, a room, and
firing, for 10s. Gd. per day. Tnis agreement had bees acted
upon till the debt amounted to 484. The 12s. 68. was for
money lent to the Marchionew—Mr. Cleasby appeared for
t►e plaintiff, and the cause being undefended, the jury re-
turned &verdict for the amount claimed.

tat
t ti the statement was true, proof must base been dia.
w.ng the rice to be ustndectj...osAh slave-trade:
t aWly to alert. se .
LeokirrredesT4 allil=
I be afforded item if tillirlfb,ntla6.3rheeer=l.
the two boys taken Ut' fle
se of controuttng thunrwtth %dr ea. The
Rogers prtsent detleoi4that *Or w lio Ifitiledo
hem; and the eblefs '4 C.
tkV.lOl6l 40 I:2lUtoki
ltry. They were the log
we were the same to - Idea thew
king Such.% and th • f ir ter of
mater. It WU quite a had
YI up by the Pta-
oal the
the prime awl the
~i.
e-