The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-05 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
THE ALEXANDRA CASE- THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V.

SELLIM AND OTHERS.

(Sittings in Banco, before the Lord Chief Baron, Barons
Bramwell, Channell, and Pigott.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said this case was an infor-
mation arising out of the seizure of the Alexandra on the
sth of April, for a violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act,
and he now humbly moved their lordships to show cause
why a new trial should not be granted on the ground of
misdirection on the part of the learned judge, and also on
the ground that the verJict was against the evidence.
Baron BRAMWELL said that in order that there might be
no mistake about the matter, he wished to know whether
the Attorney-General simply moved for a new trial and
abandoned the bill of exceptions.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that was the case.
Baron BRAMWELL wished it to be understood that the
Court must take the Lord Chief Baron's own version of his
direction, and that no appeal would lie except upon a
matter of law. If it should be the opinion of the Court that
there was no misdirection, but that the jury might have
acted upon some wrong opinion, and granted a new trial,
it would not be competent for the defendant to appeal. But-
if the Court refused the rule it would not be competent for
the plaintiff to appeal. It was very desirable that these
three things should be well understood :-Ist, that the
plaintiff abandoned the bill of exceptions; 2d, that the
Court would take the Lord Chief Baron's own version of his
direction; and 3d, that there would be no appeal from the
decision on either side except on a matter of law.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would proceed to state
how the information arose. The information was filed on
the 28th of May, and there were 98 counts, a number which
was rendered necessary by the complicated structure of the
Act of Parliament on which it was founded. The infor-
mation charged various persons with a violation of the 7th
section of the Foreign Enlistment Act. Those persons were
Messrs. Miller and Co., the builders; Messrs. Faucit and
Co., the manufacturers of the machinery, who came for-
ward as the claimants ; Messrs. Frazer, Trenholm, and Co.,
the general agents of the Confederate States; Captain Bul-
lock, who was the special agent of the Confederate Go-
vernment, a person named Teisser, who was employed in
that business, and several others unknown. Separate
counts were founded upon the 7th section of the Foreign
Enlistment Act, which stated that if any person in
the United Kingdom or in his Majesty's dominions beyond
the seas shall equip, furnish, fit out or arm, or attempt to
equip, furnish, fit out, or arm, &c. Now their lordships
would find that the plaintiff, while charging, equipping, or
fitting out, did not charge arming.
The LORD CHIEF BARON—That was the great point on
which I was doubtful.

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL thought the learned judge
in his summing up overlooked the provisions of attempting
and endeavouring, and addressed himself to the complete
equipment and fitting out in the sense which his lordship
considered those words ought to bear. He would now come
to the evidence which was given at the trial, and would
show how it would bear upon the Act of Parliament.
When the Court considered the evidence in connection with
the direction, he thought the jury would find that the jury
had no opportunity of giving a verdict upon those points;
the matter having been left to them on entirely different
grounds. First, he would direct their lordships attention
to the evidence of Mr. Barnes. who was an engine •driver
in the employment of Messrs. Barnes, and he stated that he
had been concerned in the yard in building three gunboats,
the Atrato, the Penguin, and the Steady. He was asked
whether he recollected the screw steamer Alexandra being
there, and he said she was like the other gunboats, only
smaller, Then came Mr. Spears, who was an agent of
Messrs. Faucit, who claimed the vessel, and who received
orders to take the machinery to the gunboat. Then there
were Mr. Black, a ship carpenter, and Mr. Green, a ship-
builder. They stated that the bulwarks of the Alexandra
were not those of a merchant vessel, on account of their
extraordinary strength and height. Those bulwarks would
be worse than useless except for a vessel of war, and
that to a merchant vessel they would be an absolute incum-
brance. They stated further that the Alexandra had pitch
pine decks, a wood which was only used for war vessels.
Then came Capt. Englefield, who was a very high authority
on these matters. He expressed his opinion that the Alexan-
dra was not fit for mercantile purposes, and that she was
easily adaptable for a vessel of war. She had accommodation
for the men and officers of a man-of-war, and only steerage-
room for a crew of 32 men. Ile stated that she was not
capable of being used for mercantile purposes because she
had not sufficient stowage. This was the evidence as to the
structure of the ship, and he would now proceed to that
part of the case which related to the furnishing, equipping,
and fitting, out as distinct from the structure, He held
that it was utterly unimportant whether they were war-
like equipments if ho showed that the vessel was intended for
warlike purposes. He thought that a great fallacy had run
through the argument, and that if he proved the intent and
purpose of the vessel it mattered not what were the nature of
the equipments. The learned gentleman proceeded to ana-
lyse the evidence bearing on the question of equipments,
showing that they were essentially of a warlike character,
although he did not rely upon that point. These equip-
ments, ho contended, were unequivocally connected beyond
the possibility of doubt with the ship itself, and he should
now proceed to refer to those parts of the evidence which
showed the contemporaneous preparation by the Messrs.
Faucit, who claimed the ship, of three guns and carriages just
of the character which Captain Englefield had said would be
necessary for the Alexandra. (The learned gentleman read
the evidence of Robinson, Carter, and others, who were en-
gaged in the construction of these guns and carriages.) It
was open to argument whether those guns and gun car-
riages were unequivocally connected with the vessel, but
as to the other points he held that there could not be any
possibility of doubt as to the connection. He now proceeded
to the evidence having reference to the intent and purpose
of the Alexandra. The evidence stood thus. It had been
proved in a manner which he should have thought clear be-
yond the possibility of doubt, and it was wholly uncontra-
dieted, that these things were done under the superinten-
dence and with the interference of the persons who were
proved to be agents of the Confederate States for the purpose
of their war service. They were Captain Bullock, who was
specially sent to this country to organise the means of
carrying on war on the seas as an officer of the Confederate
States. Then there was Mr. Hamilton, who was another
officer of the Confederate States, who was obviously em-
ployed for like purposes. Then there were Fraser, Tren-
holm, and Co., who were named in the information interven-
ing with the construction of the ship by one of their agents,
and at whose office was the seat of the agency of the Confe-
derate States, who conducted their pecuniary business, and
through whom the officers of the Alabama and other vessels
which used and abused the neutrality of this country were
engaged, and by whom those agents were paid. Then they
had the direct admission of Mr. Nutter, the builder, that the
vessel was being built under a contract for the Confederate
States, and to be employed in the belligerent service. The
learned gentleman proceeded to examine the evidence of
Mr. Clarence M. Young, acting assistant paymaster of the
Confederate States Navy, who deposed that he made pay-
ments in Liverpool to persons acting for the Confederate
States, having derived his authority from " J. D. Bullock,
Commander of the Confederate States Navy." He made
requisitions to Captain Bullock for the amount of money be
required for his payments, and then Captain Bullock gave
him orders upon Messrs. Fraser, Trenhohn, and Co., frcm
whom he received cheques. This witness was very strictly
cross-examined by Mr. Kerslake, and it was shown that
his morality was not altogether unimpeachable. It ale.
peared that while he was at Liverpool he formed a connec-
tion with a black woman, who passed as his wife, and that
he deserted her under circumstances which he (the Attorney-
General) did not pretend to justify. This black woman had
a black boy, and the man Young, who, according to his own
statement, was " raised" in Georgia, suggested that a little
money might be made of the little black boy, and that he
might be sold. It was not the intention, as had been
alleged, of the Attorney-General to whitewash this witness
who spoke only of the liters seripta and the res gestce of
certain persons, and which were accredited by documents
which had been produced, and to which no objection of any
kind had at any time been made, He spoke as to simple
facts. In England we had. liberty and did net sell either
white men or black, but the witness Young came from a
country where such things existed, and a man brought up
in an atmosphere of slavery, and who was engaged in burn-
ing up merchant vessels on the high seas,would scarcely be
expected to have very tender feelings. In America this
person would have been a very good witness notwithstand-
ing hisblackboy, for in that country they did not allow either
black men or black boys to enter the witness-box whatever
might be the extent of the evil complained of. Therefore the
eloquent vituperation in which Sir Hugh Cairns indulged
in reference to this witness, was quite beyond the mark.
They wanted nothing from Young but to prove the agency
of Bullock, and that he very clearly established. Then
another witness named Chapman was called. He entered
hathvee
service of Messrs. Frazer and Trenholtn, pretending
of the
Southern syrepathietewhereas his views were in
o favour
Northern moment
justify States, aco irse which he did not f
justify ; but this witness also proved certaintranur
transactions
ewaimt he
uowßullockto the about
evidencewhich there
which
ohne
nd bedezo
tc,
.naiopr
sdt
isnpußteu o dispute. He
with thek
Mr. Hamilton, Captain Teieser,
building
,n and which proved
between
and
frequent q
eui
communicationppiug o
bfythleetvteer,eseaald messages
Ft hreasfeirr,mriorfer,Mhoe
18,17. Faucit
Co., in
C referenceo . , t ncl
the
Messrs.e
Alex-
andra. He contended thattheevidencedeissee gentlemen,losealae
number of single acts performed by these
which, taken by themselves, were not of great importance.
but which, when viewed in combination, showed a common
object with regard to the matter now under considera-
tion. A person named Da Costa was examined,
and stated that Mr. Miller, the builder of the Alex-
andra, had stated to him that she was a gunboat, and
that he, i n conjunction with Faucit and Co., was building
the Alexandra for Frazer, Trenholin and Co., the agents for
the Confederate States, for the service of those States. In
the cross-examination of this witness nothing was elicited,
either with regard to his testimony or his manner,pine ab
ythe
whichthat
shook his credit the least in the worldniessHeex
submittedla
upon that uneontradicied evidence, u
manner in which they were directed, the jury have found a
verdict for the Crown. OA the ktuanniug up the jury had