The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 15.

FORBES V. SIR ALEXANDER COCHRANE AND ANOTHER.
This was an action on the case against the defendants, Sir
Alexander Cochrane and Sir G. Cockburn, for seducing and
enticing certain slaves of the plaintiff to quit a cotton plantation
belonging to him, in East Florida, whereby he lost the ser-
Nices of the said slaves, and was prevented and hindered from
cultivating the said plantation. The second count was for har-
bouring and detaining the said slaves ; and the third count
was for harbouring and detaining them after notice that they
belonged to the plaintiff, and thereby depriving him of their
services on the plantation.
Mr. SCARLETT, Mr. MARRYATT, and Mr. COMYN, con-
ducted the plaintiff's case ; and Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL,
Mr. GASELEE, and Mr. E. LAwES, the defendants'.
The case disclosed in evidence was this :—The plaintiff, a
British subject, had, for upwards of thirty years, resided in
East Florida, and carried on the business of a merchant for
supplying the South American Indians, under licences from
the Spanish and British Government, when hostilities hap-
pened to subsist between the two powers. His place of actual
residence during that time was Pensacola. He owned a large
cotton plantation, called San Padlow, situate about thirty miles
from the confines of Georgia, one of the United States, on which
plantation were employed about 100 slaves. During the hosti-
lities between this country and the United States in 1815, the
defendants were employed in a naval expedition against Geor-
gia, and took possession of Cumberland Island, which is sepa-
rated from East Florida by the River St. Mary. The plaintiff's
plantation was situated on the banks of the River St. John,
within the Spanish territory of East Florida, and bounded
by Amelia Island, which is under the same dominion. As
soon as the defendants had taken Cumberland Island, apro-
clamation was published by Sir Alexander Cochrane, inviting
persons resident in the United States, supposed to be dissatis-
fied with their then situation, to withdraw from the power of
the American Government, and place themselves and families
under the protection of the British 'power, at the same time
offering to receive persons fit to serve in his Majesty's land or
sea service, or to carry them to any of the British Colonies,
there to be provided for as free settlers. This proclamation
was distributed in Cumberland Island, in which, St. Mary's,
the capital of the province of Georgia, is situated, and in con-
sequence of it, numbers of negro slaves deserted their masters'
service, and placed themselves under the protection of the Bri-
tish Admirals, who received them on board a tender called the
Terror, where they were furnished with provisions. The pro-
clamation having found its way into the Spanish territory, a
great many slaves also escaped from their masters, and followed
the example of their American brethren. Amongst there were
38 slaves belonging to the plaintiff, including men, women,
and children, who seized a boat belonging to their master,
and conveyed themselves down the River Saint John to the
Terror, on board which they were received onthe 23d February,
1815 ; thence removed to the Albion commanded by Sir G.
Cockburn ; afterwards carried on board his Majesty's ship I
Ruby, where they remained until March 1816, when they were I
landed at Bermuda, and employed in his Majesty's dock-yards
there, where they now remain. In consequence of the escape I
of the slaves from East Florida, the Spanish Governor of that
Province entered into a correspondence with Sir A. Cochrane
upon the subject. The plaintiff also wrote to the Admiral
upon the same subject, and had a personal interview with him,
in which he demanded the restitution of his slaves. The
answer was, that as the slaves had made their escape they
were free agents ; that they were under the protection of
the British power ; that the Admiral had no authority what-
ever
to deliver them up again to slavery, but that the plaintiff
was at liberty to use his best efforts to persuade them to re-
turn, if they thought proper, and that he would not offer any
obstruction for that purpose. Persuasions of this kind were
used accordingly, but without effect, the negroes preferring their
new to their old situation. The slaves were received on board
the British ships as refugees, and their names were returned as
such to the Admiralty. To recover a compensation for the in-
jury thus occasioned to the plaintiff, the present action was
brought. The slaves were estimated at 1001. each in value,
amounting to 3,4001., in addition to which the plaintiff sought a
reparation for the injury sustained by the loss of their services.
The question was, whether the slaves, having escaped and placed
themselves under the protection of the British Admiral, the lat-
ter was bound to force them to return to their formermaster ? For
the plaintiff it was contended that as he had lost the services of
the ,slaves in consequence of the acts of the defendants, they
were liable, in point of law, for the consequential damage. On
the other hand, it was insisted that the defendants were exempt
from all liability upon the general principle, that when once a
slave escapes from his bondage, and places himself under the
authority of the British laws, he becomes absolutely free of
his manacles, and no authority on earth can compel him to re-
turn to his former state of slavery.
The CHIEF JUSTICE thought it a subject of vast import-
ance, and recommended that there should be a special case
stated for the opinion of the Court above, with liberty to turn
the facts into a special verdict.
This was agreed to on both sides, and
The Jury found their verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
3,8001. subject to a case.