The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-25 00:00:00

PRIZE DECISIONS.

On the 25th of May Judge Marwin gave judg-
ment in the case of the Dolphin steamer, captured
by a Federal steamer near Porto Rico, while osten-
sibly prosecuting a voyage from . verpool to
Nassau. The vessel and cargo were claimed by
Mr. Grazebrook of the former place, and the cargo
was consigned by him to Messrs. Chambers and Raw
of Nassau. It consisted of a general assortment-
-46 cases containing rifles, and 20 cases of cavalry
swords ware described in the freight list as " hard-
ware." The Judge said,—" If it was the intention
of the owner that the vessel should simply touch at
Nassau, and should proceed thence to Charleston or
some other port of the enemy, then the voyage was
not a voyage prosecuted by a neutral from one
neutral port to another, but to a port of the enemy,
begun and carried on in violation of the belligerent
rights of the United States to blockade the enemy's
ports and to prevent the introduction of munitions
of war. The act of sailing for a blockaded port,
with a knowledge of the existence of the blockade,
and with an intent to enter, is itself an attempt to
break it, which subjects the vessel and cargo to cap-
ture in any part of the voyage. So also the offence
of attempting to carry articles contraband of war
to an enemy is complete,and the vessel liable to cap-
ture the moment she enters upon her voyage. The
offence consists in the act of sailing, coupled with
the illegal intent." The master swore that the
voyage was to terminate at Nassau ; he was to de-
liver the steamer to Messrs. Chambers and Raw,
and the crew were to be sent home. The mate and
other witnesses confirmed this testimony, the mate
stating that his engagement was from Liverpool to
Nassau and his passage home. But the Judge said,
—" It is hardly credible that this vessel was to end
her voyage at Nassau. For what was she going
and how was she to be employed there? It is not
suggested that she was going there for sale. Was
she to be employed in making short voyages, suited
to her capacity, to and from blockaded ports, in
like manner as so many or all the other steamers
of about her size which have lately come out
from England to Nassau have been employed in
making until captured ? Except such voyages, it
would be difficulty to think of any trade she
could engage in at Nassau, or at any other port in
the West Indies, by which she could defray the ex-

penses of running. What was to be done with the

cargo ? It was to be delivered to Chambers and
Raw. But what were they to do with it ? Nas-
sau furnishes no market for any such cargo as this.
It is a small town. The adjacent islands possess
but a small population, dependent on it for sup-
plies. Probably, not three merchant steamers ever
arrived at that port from any part of the world,
until after the present blockade was established,
except the regular Government mail steamers. Was
her cargo to be sold in Nassaa, including the 920
rifles and the 2,240 swords ? These are questions
which it is not unreasonable that a prize court
should ask and expect some reasonable solution of
in a case like this." But the judge considered the
letters of the shipper found on board to be conclu-
sive. In those of earliest date he addressed the con-
signees as likely to get rid of the cargo, and employ
the ship in carrying rum to the French army, or

trading between New York and Nassau, or bringing
coals from Prince Edward's Island to Nassau, but
said nothing of paying off the crew or sending them
to England. " Tnese letters," said the judge,
" were evidently written to be shown to our
cruisers." But there was a letter of later date, per-
haps unknown to the master, in which the shipper
wrote, referring to the former letters, " I now cancel
those instructions ; I shall send you a power of at-
torney for certain purposes by next mail. I hope
you will be able to get some more goods on, instead
of taking any off." The judge said, " The studied
effort to conceal the ulterior destination, the swords
and rifles found on board, and denominated in the
freight list hardware,' the almost certain impossi-
bility of employing a steamer of this class and size
in any trade in this part of the world by which she
could earn her expenses even, other in the trade and
business of violating the blockade, all point with
unerring certainty to Charleston or Wilmington as
the ulterior destination of the vessel and cargo. Con-
demnation of the ship and cargo follows." The judge
then proceeded to the case of the Pearl, seized on the
voyage from Liverpool to Nassau, with no cargo but
a few sailors's jackets on board. He said—" I think
the law is, that if an owner sends his vessel to d
neutral port, with a settled intention to commence
from such port a serves of voyages to a blockaded
port, he thereby commences to violate the blockade
and subjects his vessel to capture, notwithstanding
he may also intend to unlade the vessel at the neu-
tral port, discharge the crew, and give all other ex-
ternal manifestations of an intention to end the
voyage at such port. Now, it is a notorious fact that
a considerable number of steamers, near the size of
this, being swift sailers and drawing but little water,
have lately come out from England to Nassau, and
have entered at once upon the business of running
the blockade at Charleston or Wilmington, and have
continued regularly in that business until they have
been captured. We do not hear of any of them en-
gaging in any other business or trade. Indeed, it
is very well known that there is no other business or
employment at Nassau for steamers of the size of
this in which they can engage, with a reasonable
prospect of clearing the expense of running even.
Add to these considerations the facts that part of the
crew concur in saying that although they were hired
only for a voyage to Nassau, yet they beiieve that
the business of this vessel was to be in running be-
tween that port and Charleston or Wilmington ; and
some of them give as reasons for their belief the con-
versations had on the subject and the circumstances
attending the late purchase in Glasgow of the vessel
by the present claimant. Some of them say, too,
that there was a Confederate flag on board, put on
board in Glasgow as a part of her fitting out. They
concur in saying that it was the common opinion of
the crew, although they were not bound by their
shipping agreement to go any further than to Nas-
sau, that they would have an opportunity there to
reship in this vessel or other vessels employed in
that trade. Neither the master, the mate, nor any
other witness examined pretend t-3 give any reason
for the vessel going to Nassau, nor any opinio❑ as
to what her voyage or employment was intended to
be. The claimant, Mr. Wigg, simply says, in refer-
ence to the subject in his letter to the consignee in
Nassau, " You will have received instruction by re-
gular mail in regard to this vessel." Now, it does seem
to me that the testimony as it stands, taking all
the facts together, does raise a very strong presu m p-

tion that the owner was sending out this vessel to
Nassau with the settled purpose that she should be
employed in running between that port and the
ports of Charleston and Wilmington, in violation of
the blockade." But the Judge determined in this
case to give time to the claimant to produce further
evidence touching the use ho intended, at the time
of the capture, to make of the vessel after her ar-
rival at Nassau, the trade or business he intended
she should be engaged in, and for what purpose she
was going to that port. The New York Herald re-
porting these decisions, says :—" We doubt, after
all, whether instructions from the Navy Depart-
ment to our cruisers not to capture any vessel sail-
ing between two neutral ports (except in the clearest
case of continuous voyage to an enemy's port) would
not be wise and judicious. Too rigorous an asser-
tion of the last title of prize rights may return some
day to plague the inventors."

ART-TREASURES AT MADRID.—The possession
of forty pictures by Titian would of itself be suffi-
cient to establish the reputation of the Madrid Museam.
' The Presentation of Charles V. and his family to the
heavenly Father by the Virgin" shows how strangely
ceremony mingled even with the Emperor's religion. There
are many pictures by the Bassanos. " The going into the
of
Ark" is a delightfuly homely scene, where the sturdy wives
Sham, Ham, and Japhet are depicted on household cares
intent, and being under the weight of featherbeds fastened
on
conto
considered by many to be equal to Leonardo da Vinci's.
In the golden halo surrounding each disciple's head, the
name is inscribed—a needless precaution as regards the
loving features of St. John, and the griping, avaricious ex-
pression of Judas. One wearies of the endless studies of
painters,
Ribera from emaciated skeletons writhing in anguish, and
looking more like St. Simeond gloomy Stlylimtes thanh Christian saints
and martyrs. In dam
away a perfect
Ilsei
all doomed to certain destruction from want of air a
wealth I)ofanworgks of yraber
minor Dutch are
hpe er wed
light,—once a Week,

LAW INTELLIGENCE—June 24.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.

(Before Sir C. Cresswell and a Special Jury.)

RIDGWAY V. ABINGTON AND OTHERS.

Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Pigott,
and Dr. Tristram appeared for the plaintiff; Mr.
Karslake, Q.C., and Dr. Spinks for the defendant,
and Mr. Sergeant Shee for Mr. Wedgwood, an in-
tervener.

This was a suit instituted for the revocation of
probate of a will and codicil of Joseph Mayer, late
of Hanley, near Stoke-upon-Trent, in Staffordshire,
dated respectively the 23d of April, 1860, and the
26th of June, 1860. Probate had been granted to
the defendants as executors, and the plaintiff, who
was the son of a deceased cousin of the testator,
pleaded undue execution as to the will and codicil,
and incapacity and undue influence as to the codicil.
Mr. Mayer died at the age of 85 on the 28th of
June, 1860, leaving real and personal property of
the total value of about £200,000. He was un-
married and had no near relations, and by the will
he divided the whole of his property among his first
cousins and their descendants. On the 23d of June,
1860, he executed a codicil, but es it was not alto-
gether satistactory to him another codicil was pre-
pared, which was executed on the 26th of June.
By that codicil two annuities of £2OO, one of £lOO,
and one of £5O, were given to different relations and
friends ; smaller annuities were given to servants ;
to the plaintiff's uncle, John Ridgway, was given
£20,000; to the plaintiff Edward John Ridgway,
£5,000; to each of the three executors, Leonard
James Abington, Paul Smith, and Thomas Goddard,
' £1,000; to William Ridgway, the father of the
plaintiff, the income of £lO,OOO for life and the
capital to his children, except E. J. Ridgway, after
his death ; to various charitable institutions, legacies
to the amount of about £12,000 ; and the whole of
his real estate, of the value of about £50,000 to Leo-
nard James Abington and Abner Wedgwooa, as
tenants in common. The codicil contained clauses ex-
cluding those persons who were named in it as legatees
from their share in the residue as cousins under the
will, and directed that any of the legatees who dis-
puted as validity should forfeit his or her legacy,
which was in that event to fall into the residue. The
deceased had accumulated his fortune in the pottery
business. Mr. Abington had succeeded to his busi-
❑ess, and had been his intimate friend for 30 or 40
years. Mr. Goddard was his medical attendant, and
Mr. Wedges', ood was the brother of a lady who had
lived with him as his adopted daughter until her
death, and had always been treated by him with
great kindness and affection.
The witnesses who were examined to-day in sup-
port of the will were Dr. Walker, who had attended
the deceased during his last illness, Mr. Taylor, the
attorney who had prepared the instruments pro-
pounded, and Mr. Leonard James Abington, the
defendant. They proved that the deceased was, in
their judgment, of perfect testamentary capacity.
Mr. Taylor, who stated the manner in which he
had received the instructions for the will and codi-
cilia the first instance from Mr. Abington and those
from the deceased, to whom he had read them over
and explained them before their execution. He was
one of the attesting witnesses, and Mr. Abington's
son was the other.

Mr. Abington, upon being cross-examined by Mr.
Chambers, positively asserted that be had used no
influence whatever to induce the deceased to make
his will or to arrange his affairs, and that the de-
ceased was quite competent to attend to business
up to and at the date of the execution of the codicil.
Mr. Abington, who is in business as a potter, and
wholalso describes himself as a Baptist preacher and
lecturer, said that he had never attempted to " per-
suade" the deceased in any way, for he was a very
selfwilled man, who would not even listen to the
word persuasion, but he had sometimes acted as a
mediator between deceased and his relatives. At
the end of his cross-examination Mr. Chambers put
some letters into his band which he had written to
a member of the family in June, 1860, just before
and just after the codicil was executed. In them
he had stated that the deceased was unable to at-
tend to business, that he and Mr. Goddard had
used their utmost endeavour to get his affairs pro-
perly arranged, but in vain ; and as to those who
had claims on him, but who were not related to
him he could only say, " Alas, alas, alas !" In a
letter of the 24th of June he said, " Now all is
arranged and." Mr. Abington said he had no ex-
planation to give with regard to these letters ; and
immediately afterwards turned very pale and fell
down in a fit in the witness-box, and was carried
out of court.

The trial was then adjourned, as it was after
four o'clock.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before the Lord Chief Baron and a Special Jury.)

THE ATTORNEY -GENERA.L V. SILLEM AND OTHERS-THE