The Sun.
London, England, 1845-11-17 00:00:00

DIXON V. THE TAFF VALE RAILWAY.

MS HONOUR, in this case, stated his opinion to be, that the
plaintiff was entitled to the decree he asked by his bill.

(Before Vice-Chancellor WIGRAM.)
DYKES V. FARR.

Mr. Temple, Q.C., appeared by a cross bill for plaintiffs,
and arguments were heard yesterday and to-day on the part
of the many defendants. It appears that, at the marriage of
Dykes with defendant's daughter in 1779, a deed was drawn
out, effecting that 2,0001., the dowry of Mrs. Dykes, in case
of failure of issue, should revert after her death to her father
or his heir; but in 1778, there being no issue, a new deed
was made by Dykes and his wife, differing in the course of
reversion. In this new deed, however, to bar the charge of
2,000/ in the deed of 1779, a levy of 2,0001. by fine was intro-
duced instead of suffering a recovery. His Honour ordered
on a former hearing, that the 2,0001. of the first deed should
be raised and paid to the father, Farr, or his heir. The
next of kin to the wife, Mrs. Dykes, came into Court claim-
ing the levy of 2,000/. in the said deed, against which it was
contended by the plaintiffs, that the intention of the second
deed was evident, though not legally carried out in the form
of the deed, that there is no new creation, but a mere barring
of the sum in the deed of 1779.
Arguments were concluded on both sides, but his Honour
postponed judgment till he had further considered the nature
of the case.

PRICE V. TIM CORPORATION OF PENZANCE.
This was now reduced to a petition for costs. Sir Charles
Price entered into contract with the mayor and corporation
of Penzance, that ground for a market would be given by
him to them, they agreeing to erect the buildings. The cor-
poration delayed to fulfil the contract, which Sir C. Pries
came into Court to compel. The market, since first the case
came into Court, has been built.

--
At the request of defendants' counsel, Mr. Temple, Q.C.,
the case was referred to Tuesday.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER. Nov. 15.
PIRACY AND MURDER.
This being the day appointed by the judges for hearing
the arguments in the case of murder and piracy, tried before
Mr. Baron Platt at the late Exeter assizes, the Court was
besieged at an early hour this morning by crowds of well-
dressed persons of both sexes, and long before their Lord-
ships took their seats upon the bench every available nook
and corner was occupied. There was an exceedingly full
attendance of the gentlemen of the long robe, and one or
two foreigners of distinction, including a French judge, were
observed to be present.
Shortly after ten o'clock their Lordships, consisting of the
chief judges of the Courts of Queen's Bench, Exchequer, and
Common Fleas, entered the Court, and the case was imme-
diately proceeded with.
Mr. SERGEANT MANNING, who was engaged for the
prisoner. said he appeared on behalf of certain per-
sons who were convicted of the crime of murder on
the high seas, at the general gaol delivery, held in Exeter
in the month of July last. Their Lordships had before them
a short statement of the proceedings which took place on the
oreasiln, and before he called their Lordships' attention to the
particular terms of that statement, he must be allowed to
express his deep regret that the Learned Judge, before whom
this trial took place, had not reported to their Lordships the
evidence which was taken on the occasion.
The CHIEF Baeox—Brother, you ought not to make any
complaint of that sort, unless you intend to found an appli-
cation upon it.
The Learned SERGEANT was not aware that it was com-
pse ent far him to do so, but he must be allowed to state that
there were parts of that evidence which it was important
their Lordships should be in possession of.
Lord DENMAN—We are met here for the purpose of hearing
the case discussed, as it now stands, and to that purpose we
must confine ourselves, and not go into matter which is more
properly the subject of an application to the Learned Judge
who tried the case. Do you appear for all the prisoners?
The Learned SERGEANT replied that he did not. He ap-
peared for Martinoe Joaquim and De Santos. There were
eleven prisoners tried, but only eight of them were convicted,
the others were found Not Guilty. Now, the statement of
the Learned Judge alleged that the prisoners were convicted
on a particular count, which he confessed he could not find
in the declaration.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON (with some warmth)—Let
us conduct this case as we have hitherto conducted others,
and let the bar treat the Learned Judges with the respect
they have hitherto done. Proceed with your argument,
Brother, in the case that now comes before us.
The Learned SERGEANT then proceeded to read the state-
ment which Mr. Baron Platt had supplied to the other
Learned Judges. It merely recapitulated the facts elicited on
the trial, which have already appeared in The Sun,
and concluded by stating that the prisoners had been
found guilty of the offence with which they were charged,
and sentences of execution had been passed upon them, but
subsequently respited till the 24th instant. The Learned
Sergeant contended that the conviction was wrong upon two
grounds. In the first place he said that no crime of felony
had been committed ; and secondly, he said that supposing a
crime in the nature of a felony had been committed,
the Court at Exeter had no cognizance of the case.
Now the grounds upon which he said no crime had been
committed was, that the ,two vessels, the Felicidade
and the Echo were wrongfully taken ; but it would be suffi-
cient to support this branch of his argument to show that
either one or the other had been wrongfully taken. Now,
with regard to the first capture, that of the Felicidade, how
did the case stand? This vessel had left the Brazils, but
whether she was a Brazilian vessel did not appear, for the
purpose of going to the coast of Africa, in order to take in a
cargo of slaves. It did not appear by the statement of the
Learned Judge, nor was it contended for on the trial, that the
Felicidade had, during that voyage, taken any slaves on board,
but having certain decks which would indicate that she
trailed in slaves, she was captured. Now upon what grounds
was the lieutenant of the Wasp justified in taking pos-
ses,ion of the Felicidade? It was justified at the
trial upon two grounds, and in the first place
it was said that by the treaty between the Crown
of England and the Crown of Brazil, of November, 1826,
the offence of dealing in slaves was declared to be piracy,
and, therefore, in the language of the Learned Judge, it was
lawful for all persons of whatsoever nation they might be
to hunt down and seize upon the Felicidade and her crew,
because they were enemies to the human race. Now he took
it to be quite clear, that before a mere declaration between
two nations that a certain act which was lawful before the
treaty should become a crime, was not binding until
male obligatory by same municipal law of the country. Now,
at the time this treaty was agreed upon there did exist a
municipal law, the sth of Geo. IV., by which it was
declared that slave trading was piracy. The statute
was passed two years before the treaty, and by
the section 2, chap. 113, it was declared that the
aetnally having taken slaves on board should be the
especial act of piracy, and the 9th section provided the penal-
ties. Their Lordships, however, would see that although the
first section of the statute prohibited a variety of acts, yet
when the penalties in respect of those acts came
to be applied, only the actual removing and
carrying away of slaves was made piracy ; but the statute did
not stop there. It did not omit to provide punish-
ment for the minor offences which were denounced
in the second section. It went on in the 10th sec-
tion to make certain acts felony, and punishable by
transportation for fourteen years. Now amongst the acts
denounced was the piratical one of filling up and navigating
a vessel for the purposes of carrying slaves; and this
was the state of the law in England in 1826, when the
treaty was made between England and the Brazils.
The actual offence of piracy was punishable with death, but
the minor offences were punishable only with transportation,
fie. a term not exceeding fourteen years, not less than seven,
or by imprisonment fur a term not exceeding five years, nor
less than three. It was said, however, that the treaty made
it unlawful and piracy, to be or to have been concerned
in the carrying on of the slave-trade' but the treaty could
not affect that which was not effected by the law of England,
namely, making that piracy which by the law of England

was not.
Mr. Baron Awer.sax--,Brother Manning, will you be so
good as to tell us what point you intend to bring before us,
for it is impossible for us to understand you without a map
of the country.
Mr. Serjeant MANNING replied that he had already stated
that his argument would divide itself into two branches—
namely, that no crime of the nature of felony had been com-
mitted ; and, secondly, supposing such a crime had been com-
mitted, the English Courts had no cognizance over it. The
ground upon which, he said, that crime had been committed
rested upon two main points—first, because the parties
ch urged were unlawfully imprisoned at the time it was com-
mitted ; and, secondly, that the Felicidade was unlawfully
taken by the Lieutenant of the Wasp, and then the Echo,
to which they had been removed for confinement, was un-
law fully taken by the Felicidade. In the first place,
then. lie said the Felicidade was unlawfully and im-
properly captured, and in order to maintain that posi-
tion, he was combatting the grounds upon which it wt
asserted at the trial that she was lawfully captured at the
time he was interrupted by the Learned Judge. Ile corn-
ba 'ea the argument upon two grounds—that independently
of the treaty, these parties had not been guilty of piracy
by the law of England, but it was contended
by his Learned Friend, and ruled by the Learned Judge, that
the offence of slave-trading was complete, by their going
upon a voyage for the purpose of taking on board slaves.
Now he contended that such was not the meaning of the,
treaty, nor of the law of England, and he supported
this ground by showing what the English Le-
gislature had declared shnild be the nature
of piracy. But he took higher ground than this. He said
that supposing the treaty did expressly state, in the terms of
the 10th sec. of the sth Geo. IV., that all attempts to deal
in slaves should be suppressed, it would not be binding upon
the subjects of Brazil. If a Brazilian subject, after that
treaty, engaged himself in the slave trade, it would be
a grievance against England, fur which the English
Ambassador at Rio de Janeiro might have rernon-
trated, but the mere fact of a declaration existing
between the two counties declaring a particular act to be a
crime, did not make the Brazilian amenable to the laws of
England. Whoever heard of a prisoner being com-
mitted in England for an offence against such
and such a treaty? It would be perfectly un-
reasonable if such a doctrine were held to pervail.
There were remarkable instances on record where one c mntry
could not take cognisance of the piracy of another. In the
year 1570 the Emperor Philip the Second of Spain, by an
edict, declared his subjects guilty of piracy who should at-
tempt a fraud upon an insurance company, in effect-
ing an insurance upon a ship. In 1580 the same
Prince made another declaration, that all parties who
should destroy the herring nets on the coast of Flanders
should be guilty of piracy. Then, again, there was the case
of the Russian Ambassador, in the reign of Queen Anne.

_
Although it was found that the Ambassador had committesi
a gross violation against the law of nations, it was not
punishable here. It was only matter for the re-
monstrance of the English Ambassador in Russia.
He now came to another part of his argument.
A clause in the treaty prohibited the detention, on any pre-
tence, of a vessel not having slaves on board, and he need
not contend that this had been done in the present case.
This clause was intended for the very purpose of prevent-
ing the captain of vessels which were fitted out for the
slave-trade previous to the making of the treaty, but
it nevertheless applied to vessels fitted up afterwards. It
appeared to him, therefore, that the Felicidade had been
wrongfully captured; and, being wrongfully captured, he
submitted to their Lordships that the Felicidade remained a
Brazilian and a foreign vessel, to all intents and purposes, after
her capture ; but on the trial it was contended she became an
English vessel, and that all on board of her were subject to
the English laws. Now he might just as well argue
that a British vessel coming from Sicily with a cargo
of oil to the port of Hull, and detained by a Spa-
nish ship on suspicion of being a smuggler from Gi-
braltar, became liable to the laws of Spain. It was absurd.
What would Admiral Blake or Cromwell have said? He
would now proceed to show how the Echo was wrongfully
captured. The Echo, their Lordships would recollect, was
taken by the Felicidade, after it was captured by the Wasp.
Now, the treaty provided that there should be no detention
or seizure of a vessel, unless it was made by a vessel belonging
to the royal navy of the sovereign whose subjects make the
search ; nor should the search be conducted by a person of less
rank than a lieutenant. On the trial it was attempted to
show that this was a capture made by a British vessel, that
the Felicidade by its capture became a British vessel, and
therefore the capture effected by the Felicidade was a capture
by a British vessel, and the Learned Judge used the expres-
sion that she must be considered " as a boat of the Wasp."
It was rather fortunate, however, that there was a decision
of Lord Stowell upon this point in a casesomewhat analogous
to this. It would be found reported in sth Robinson, page
41, in the ease of Melomaniac v. Coles, which arose out of a
claim for a prize, captured by a boat belonging to an ad-
miral's ship, manned by the men of that ship, but not under
commission, and it was ruled by Lord Stowell that the cap-
ture was made by a vessel belonging to the British navy.
It was expressly provided in the treaty that a ship captured
could not be considered a part of the navy of Great Britain
till such time as a condemnation had taken place in the
courts of Sierra Leone. The Felicidade had never been con-
demned at all, having been lost in her passage to Sierra
Leone ; but even if she had been, such condemnation would
not have had a retrospective effect This defect in the cap-
ture of the Felicidade, however, did not apply to the Echo, for
she had slaves on board when she was seized. But in the
capture of the Echo, there was a defect of another kind,
which did not apply to the Felicidade. It was provided in
the treaty that no person under the rank of a lieutenant
should search a merchant ship suspected of being engaged in
the slave-trade. Now Lieutenant Stupart did not search the
vessel in question, but it was undertaken by Thomas Palmer,
a midshipman. True, Lieutenant Stupart was in the Felici-
dade at the time, but he did not go on board the Echo till next
morning, after Palmer had searched it. It was not sufficient
for the purposes of the treaty that Lieutenant Stupart
should be on the deck of his own vessel hard by, but it was
required of him that he should make the search and capture
in person. He (the Learned Sergeant) therefore contended
that the capture was illegal, because it was not undertaken
by Lieutenant Stupart. If the latter was to be considered the
seizing party, then he might as well have been half a mile
distant instead of a few yards. For the protection of
those engaged in commerce it was necessary that search
should not be undertaken except in rigorous compliance with
the terms of the treaty. Another point invalidating the
capture of the Echo, was that, supposing the Felicidade had,
whether rightly or wrongly, been seized and condemned, and
thereby become a part of the British navy, she had no written
instructions on board, she was not within sight of the Wasp
when the seizure was made, and there was no evidence that
the Felicidade was sent in search of the Echo. On this
ground, therefore, the treaty was violated, which
requires that the seizing vessel shall have
written instructions. If he (the Learned Sergeant) had
established any or all of those points, he maintained the
seizure was as illegal as an English cruiser seizing a French
merchant-ship in the Channel in a time of peace. Such
a seizure being evidently unlawful, the parties
so captured, without appealing to the laws of their
nations, bad a clear right to rescue themselves and
the ship by force. He thought he had shown their Lord-
ships quite clearly, from the review of the facts
he had placed before them, that Macherval had a right to
regain his ship, and the other parties to o'stain their liberty.
If the seizure of the Felicidade was in the first instance
illegal, then had the owner of that vessel, on the earliest op-
portunity, without appealing to the Court of Sierra Leone,
or any other tribunal, a right to recapture his vessel, and
to use whatever force was necessary to obtain that pos-
session. He also contended that the men taken pri-
soners had a similar right to exert themselves by
force to obtain their liberty ; and any other means of ob-
taining their liberty than by simultaneously rushing on Mr.
Palmer and the other seamen in charge, did not appear
practicable In the conflict that took place Palmer was
stabbed and thrown overboard; but under the circumstances
there was no proof that the act in question was murder.
These men in what they did had done nothing more than what
had been repeatedly performed by our ships in time of war.
Many instances h ad been in which pnvateers captured merchant
ships, and afterwards the crew of the latter, taking advan-
tage of favourable opportunities, rose up against their con-
querors, and obtained their liberty by throwing them over-
board. If this was justifiable in the case of privateer seizures,
which were lawful, it was much more so in the present case,
wheie the capture had been illegaL He now came to another
of the objections he had to the conviction of these men.
As foreigners, he maintained they were not amenable to
British laws. The vessel in which these men were
at the time of this unfortunate occurrence had never
ceased to be a foreign vessel, and, therefore, in law a foreign
sail ; therefore no court of law in this country had jurisdic-
tion over it or them. Had condemnation taken place before
the slaying of Palmer, this view of the case might have been
altered, supposing the capture in accordance with the treaty,
but, as he had already shown, the vessel had never been con-
demned, having been lost in ber passage to Sierrs
Leone. There was a ease in point that supported
the view he had just advanced. It was the case of
the King r. Depardo, given in "Taunton's Reports," vol. 1.
The case was tried at the Old Bailey on the 30th of October,
1807. Depardo was a Spaniard, engaged in the Alnwick
Castle ship, who killed a person named Burn, on shore at
Canton. The wound was inflicted on shore, but Burn died
in consequence of it. on board ship immediately after-
wards. In that case it was ruled that the offence being
committed by a foreigner, and beyond the jurisdiction of this
realm, the courts of this country had. no jurisdiction.
The Learned Counsel then referred to another case
of a similar character in its main treatment,
that of a Maltese who killed a man at Smyrna. It was given
in 2d Mudie's Crown Cases. The trial took place in 1843, at
the Central Criminal Court, before Mr. Baron Gurney. It
was then ruled, in an appeal to the Judges against the con-
viction, that the Court had jurisdiction, because the prisoner
in the case, though a Maltese, was aßritish subject, and there-
fore subject to the British laws. These decisions placed the
question of jurisdiction in a clear light, and with these he
closed his argument, leaving the case in the hands of their
Lordships.
Mr. COLLIER rose to address the Court on behalf of the three
other prisoners, Jas. Majavul, Francisco Serva, and Marie Jose
Alves. He submitted that the courts of this country had no
jurisdiction over those for whom he appeared, as they were
foreigners, and had never, by any act of theirs, given in
their adherence or allegiance to the Government of this
country. Before any person can be subject to the laws
of this country he must do that which will bring him
under allegiance to the Sovereign of the country. The
mere coming into the country was not sufficient to
constitute allegiance, but the party must likewise become so
by some act, such as the law recognised as a social compact
between him and the Government. This was the view of the
question taken by all eminent jurists, by Vattel, Montesquieu,
Story, and others who had written on the laws of nations.
Now, there had been no evidence that his clients had ever
done anything that could be cor.strued into an act of alle-
giance to the laws of this country. There was no doubt that
Depardo, had he been an Englishman, would have been triable
for murder, but not being so, he was considered not amenable
to the laws of Great Britain. Even admitting that the slay-
ing of Palmer was an act of murder, the prisoners charged
with it being foreigners had no right to be tried by the tri-
bunals of this country. But the case was much stronger
against this jurisdiction, when it appeared, as he maintained
it did, that the Felicidade was a foreign vessel at the time of
her seizure. Piracy, he admitted, was a crime for which,
according to the laws of nations, the perpetrators of it
could be attacked by any vessel, and under any c'tr c um -
stances. Pirates were robbers of the seas, and subject
to be destroyed by any ships that might come
upon them. But the slave-trade had never been criminally
considered piracy. It could alone be made such by treaty,
and then an act of piracy was to be declared only when a
ship was found having slaves actually on board. The
Learned Counsel here went through the clauses of the treaty,
showing that only ships of the navy belonging to the con-
tracting nations were competent to search vessels; that offi-
cers of a certain standing must have the charge of such
searches and seizures, and that all such ships should
carry written instructions. The terms of the treaty
were clear and explicit. No seizure could take place without
special instructions, and then the seizure must be made where
slaves were found on board. If officers of the navy were
to be allowed to capture ships merely because they were fitted
up for slave traffic, or to man what ships they pleased as
cruizers in pursuit of suspected ships, nothing but confusion
and bloodshed would repeatedly ensue. It had been so in the
present case. The stipulations had been violated by
Lieutenant Stupart in the seizure of the Felicidade,
and the owner of that ship, with his assistants,
had been tempted to make resistance afterwards to the crew
that captured them, because of its inefficient force. This fact
was itself sufficient to show that the seizure must have been
undertaken without sufficient force, and in a manner that
could not have been intended by the treaty. The Felicidade
being, therefore, an illegal capture, it followed that the using
of that ship under the circumstances to take the Echo was also
illegal. The Learned Gentleman then went over the points dwelt
on by the previous Learned Counsel respecting the searching
of the Echo by Palmer and the proceedings of Lieutenant
Stupart, all of which, he contended, were in contravention
of the terms of the treaty. Assuming even that these men were
under English jurisdictiou at the time, he still considered that
they had been unlawfully taken prisoners, and therefore
justified in endeavouring, by forcible means, to obtain their li-
berty. Having recapitulated the principal beads of his
argument, of which the above is but an outline, the Learned
Gentleman concluded by expressing, that from all the facts
of the case interpreted by the laws of nations, and the writ-
ings of the highest legal authorities, the courts of this coun-
try possessed no such jurisdiction as had been exercised in
the case under the consideration of the Court.
This closed the argument on behalf of the prisoners.
Mr. GODSON on the part of the Crown, said he was sur-
prised that not one of the positions urged upon the treaty
had been touched this morning. It had been contended
on the trial that the treaty of which so much had been
male this morning was not in existence at the time. Now,
it is necessary that, the fact of the death being proved, all
the necessities of the case must be proved by the pri-
soners. Bat they say that they were confined in an im-
proper place—in a place to which the English have no
right, and therefore used violence for escape. That is no excuse
for killing. I shall prove that the Felicidade was legally taken
as well as the Echo. Captain Usher having instructions
from her Majesty, and sailing in those seas, sends two boats
on board this slaver. The boats followed till they overtook
her. While Lieutenant Stupart is on board Surkeray sub-
mitted. She had no slavers on board ; it is a question whe-
ther he therefore ought to have detained her. He argued,
from the treaty with Brazil, that after 1830 i was piracy for
any Brazilian subject to be taken with slaves on board his
ship. It was insisted on the other side, that from 5 Geo. IV.,
they must have slaves on board, or have had slaves on board
that voyage • but it is clear that to be in any way con-
cerned in the slave-trade makes him liable to treatment
as a pirate. And if so, who is so to treat him, who not?
This brings me to the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty.
Now this is over all the seas wherever the tide flows. But
without dwelling on this, here is a vessel, which, under the
treaty, subjects herself to the charge and punishment of
piracy. The sth Geo. IV. is, after Mareh, 1830, applicable,
as appears from the plain words of the Act, and from the
construction put by Parliament on measures between Eng-

land and Brazil, in 8 and 9 Victoria. The concern in the
trade is illegal ; but, as his Lordship on the trial found they
were going for a cargo of slaves to Africa, thus subjecting
th emselves to the punishment of piracy. The Portuguese
treaty ended in March, in the year 1820, and
if any informality . existed in the taking, yet the vessel
was possession of the Queen's officers by the submission
of Suritera. That Surkera did submit appears from his
refusing on this account to join the plot when requested by
Serve. Lieutenant Stupart, when he left the Felicidade to
go on board of the Echo, went with his jolly boat, and the
British ensign on her, Lieutenant Stupart being in uniform.
The Echo was taken by a British vessel, under a British
lieutenant, and under instructions which existed on board
the Wasp, from which the boat came. The objec-
tions taken on the other side go for nothing.
It has been said, and I agree with it, that when a
treaty has been made between two nations, it is necessary
that some Act of Parliament should be passed, giving power
to carry the Act out. All I contend for here is, that she
was legally taken—that all the circumstances and requisites
of the treaty were performed. What should be done with
them ? There is no doubt of that at all. But it is not for those
taken to say, while in custody, the place of custody does
not belong to the person taking into custody, and,
under that, make violent efforts to escape. As to
the instructions, they certainly accord with the
treaty, and with the Act of Parliament after 1830. Let
us look at it as a case of piracy independently. Here an
officer of her Majesty is in possession of a ship by her
master's submission. The men on board conspire to com-
mit piracy, and in committing that act kill an English-
man. It is laid down by Lord Coke that piracy against
Ergland, or an English vessel, or that of an alien, is punish-
able. The case may go further. Piracy is a crime with all
nations now on the waves over which the jurisdiction
of the Admiralty Court extends. This vessel and the
jolly-boat were floating, and on board of that vessel the
crew conspire to commit piracy, to which Surkera objects,
and commits murder—are they to be justified ? The counsel
quoted the case of the King v. Sawyer, to show that stopping
short of land on the high seas on board of a vessel in posses-
sion of one of her Majesty's officers, parties are answerable
for their crimes. To take up the narrowest point, it is con-
tended that being in custody in an illegal place, then that
in cool blood murder mar be concocted and perpetrated
against the custodiers. It is but necessary to state the
objection to see the monstrosity of it ; and no authorities had
been quoted in support of it. Take the case any way we may,
I think I have made out that murder has been committed.
Mr. Sergeant Mame:llG rose to reply. He was amazed
that his Learned Friend should contend that the Queen can
legally come into possession by a wrongful act. It is said
the Sovereign can do no wrong, but these acts,
though done by officers in her Majesty's service,
being their acts, and not the acts of the Crown,
and being wrong, can vest nothing in the Crown
whatever. The Echo was not taken by a British vessel, for
by treaty the Felicidade was not the property of England
and Brazil till sold, when she might be purchased by either.
The Echo was, in fact, taken by the Felicidade, notwithstanding
that the captors left by the English jolly-boat to go on board.
The lieutenant left the Felicidade to go on board the Echo,
but she in being hailed, sheered off, and was not taken
till the following night. She was not taken
by Lieutenant Stupart, but by another person sent by him,
whereas the treaty compels the taking by a lieutenant in
uniform. The Learned Sergeant held there were no instruc-
tions on board the Wasp, and if there had been, they would
not have availed. There were no instructions if
those on board were bad. Now the treaty requires
that instructions be put on board inhibiting the
detention of Brazilian vessels by British officers, unless
with slaves on board. But instructions were put on board
to the effect that they should detain on suspicion of being
concerned in the slave trade.
The Learned CHIEF BARON—The objection taken was that
there were no instructions on board of the Felicidade. The
Learned Chief Baron understood from Mr. Godson that these
Portuguese treaties of 1826 ended in 1830. By the treaty
with Portugal the slave-trade was only partially put an end
to. By the treaty with Brazil it was declared piracy.
The Learned SERGEANT here read from Bth and 9th Victoria
to show that the mixed Commissions at Rio Janeiro, and Sierra
Leone, ending on the 12th March, 1845, were extended by
mutual agreement of both Governments for six months
longer. As to the Felicidade, there is no pretext for confound-
ing the provisions of the sth Geo. IV. with those of
the treaty of 1836. The words of the treaty are
—the carrying on of the slave trade, under which terms he
submitted the present offence could not be brought. He bad
no intention to differ from the dicta quoted on Homicide.
One of their Lordships remarked that was nothing as to
the place where the case was to be tried.
The Learned SERGEANT argued that the Felicidade
was not the property of the English Government. It has been
suggested that there was a locus penitentim, but that there
was no evidence of any desistance from the purpose ; but the
Learned Sergeant suggested that the locus penitentire did
not end till the slaves were on board.
Mr. COLLIER said, under no circumstance is a person
subject to. the laws of a country who has not, by some
act, complied with them. This proposition has not
been :haken. He would not say more of the distinc-
tion as to prisoners of war. It has never been decided
in any case that any person on Ward an English vessel is
therefore subject to English laws. It is claimed on the other
side to extend the jurisdiction of England over the high
seas to the exclusion of other nations. This can never be done.
Surkera's submission was to superior force, and gives no
jurisdiction ; he threw his arms overboard when he surren-
dered. It is not shown that the jolly-boat from which the
Echo was taken was the jolly-boat of the
Felicidade. The capture, under the circumstances,
was illegal. The boat was on board the Felicidade. Any
English captain might evade the treaty by sendingn boat's crew
to any number he plea, ed on board English merchantmen; thus
giving them a legality to capture; that is, if the capture
be in this case thought lawful. As to the instructions,
those pointed out in the treaty of 1826 are by the treaty with
Brazil that if these instructions are not changed, they should
remain in force fifteen years after the slave trade was
abolished, and these ending only on 13th March,
1845 ; and this case occurring in February, the instructions
of 1826 were at the time in force. Again, it must be proved
that if a captain unlawfully detain a seaman, and he kill, the
case is murder. He quoted to the effect that it would not
be murder.
Mr. COLLIER having now concluded, the Court rose at a
gamier to four o'clock.
The Court will sit again on the same cause at two o'clock
on Saturday next.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Nov. 15.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GouLnouns.)
DT RE CAMPBELL.

This insolvent is a clerk in the merchants'-office, Custom-
house, and came up for his interim order, which was opposed.
The insolvent not being present at the hour appointed, an
application was made to dismiss the petition.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said he would adjourn the
hearing sine die.
The Learned COMMISSIONER in a previous case held, that
when a defendant was let out of custody, and obtained his
interim order, non-attendance was not a ground of commit-
inent. In the present case the insolvent not having been in
custody, could not be committed.
The insolvent arrived shortly after, and it was agreed to go
on with the case. The principal ground of opposition was
that the insolvent had not paid the expenses of the funeral of
his uncle, from whom, previously to bis death, he had received
a large sum of money.
The insolvent said his debts were 2131. He had a wife and
two children and an aged mother to support, and his salary
was only 901. a-year.
The COMMISSIONER said that he could not make any order
to apply any part of so small a salary.
The opposing creditor said that the salary was a rising
one.

The insolvent said that he had been an extra clerk at 255.
per week, and that his present salary would not be increased
for three years—perhaps not then—and his salary would then
be raised 101. a-year. He admitted having received 2351.
from his uncle nine months before his death, and had paid it
away to different creditors. _ _

The creditor said it was very hard that the money should
have been given to the insolvent who had spent it, leaving
funeral expenses unpaid.
The insolvent said that the remainder of the money left
was so small that he did not think it prudent to administer.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said the insolvent appeared
to have given a clear account of the disposal of the money,
and considering that he was pressed by circumstances, he,
(the Learned Commissioner) would grant the interim order.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

On Saturday Mr. John George Behrendo, of Wood-street-
buildings, Consul for the free city of Frankfort, accom-
panied by his solicitor, Mr. Finch, of the firm of Finch and
Shepheard, Old Jewry, appeared before the Lord Mayor, for
the purpose of bringing under his Lordship's notice a com-
munication which he had just received from his Government
relative to certain fraudulent transactions of very great ex-
tent and enormity.
The communication was to the following effect :—Two
Englishmen, of the names of Henry King and George Neale,
at least rerresenting themselves to be so named, dwelt for
some time at \Veisbaden, near Frankfort, and established
for themselves, by the exercise of skilful address and
high apparent respectability, considerable credit in
the latter town. At length, by ingenious management,
they succeeded in obtaining in Frankfort, from various
jewellers and other shopkeepers, a large quantity of dif-
ferent sorts of goods, chiefly consisting of jewellery, diamonds,
pearls, &c. This property, together with sortie foreign bank
notes, which they contrived to get into their hands, proved
to be worth about 20,0001. A few days after they obtained
possession of the valuable mass, they suddenly disappeared,
taking with them bag and baggage. The precipitate departure
of the two partners ,n inquity, under such circumstances, con-
stituted what was considered, according to the laws of Frank-
fort, to be a "fraudulent bankruptcy," althouNh unfortunately
for the ends of justice and those concerned in the vindication of
the law by the punishment of desperate criminals, the vali-
dity of that law was not recognised in English courts of
justice, and the authorities of Frankfort issued a request to all
the continental Governments to arrest the parties, and seize
all or any of the property described which might be found in
their keeping. Notice was also given to theßritish represen-
tative at Frankfort, who promised to inform the English Go-
vernment, in order that they might assist in procuring for
the plundered the restoration of their property, if the offence
which had been perpetrated did not come within the limits
of British authority, so far as to sanction the interference of
the police in apprehending the delinquents should they be
found in England.
The LORD MAYOR was of opinion that immediate infor-
mation should be given to the police force, and he was con-
vinced that the press would most willingly lend its co-ope-
ration in such a case. The police of this country, when sent
to any part of the Continent, uniformly received the most
ready and important assistance from the foreign authorities,
from the highest to the lowest, and no doubt reciprocal aid
would be rendered, particularly in a case involving so serious
an amount of property.
Mr. Finch said the details of the whole of the property
which had been thus fraudulently procured had been handed
to the police, and the plundered parties had promised, through
the department of police at Frankfort, a reward of 25,000
francs 1,0000 for the restiution of the whole amount, and a
proportionate snm for any part of it. King, who is believed
to be a Jew, is between fifty and sixty years of age, of short
stature, sallow complexion, and pointed nose, has a short
neck, and takes short steps in walking. Neale is between
twenty-six and thirty years old, and rather tall, has very
black thick hair, a large tongue, and fresh complexion, and
generally appears to be heated.
The LORD MAYOR—I am convinced that the most public
and satisfactory statement of the fraudulent transactions will
be made, and I hope the sufferers will receive some benefit
from the exposure, to which I most heartily give my consent.
The consul and his solicitor then withdrew, after having
thanked his Lordship, onthe part of the High Senate ofFrank-
fort, for his very prompt and anxious attention to their
request.
Ramway ROMANCINQ.—A gentleman of the name of
Baylis, who resides in St. Paul's churchyard, appeared
at the table, and said the Lord Mayor would very
much oblige him by informing him whether the authority of
a magistrate extended to cases in which the conduct of cer-
tain individual who were connected with railroads was such