The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-11-12

original owner has undergone any change, 4
variety Of arguments have been ufed, and
number Of cafes produced to thew that no
Change Of property has taken place, particular
ly that the decree of condemnation which could
not be procured ON the former trial, but is now
produced and fled, and can have no operation
on the preieEt queilion, becaufe that decree is
dated the 18th of July, 1904, and is grounded
on an ordinance of the Governour- General of
ST. Domingo, dated the 10th of March preced-
ing, where it appears from evidence before the
court that the capture was made on the esd
February, 1904, fifteen days prior to The or
dinance for breach of which ihe is condemn
ed ; and that the procefs of this court under
which this tuit was commenced, fiued in April,
three months bs fore the date of the decree OF
condemnaton.-A number of cafes were pro-
duced To ihew, that property taken on the high
feas Cannot be changed but by condemnation,
and that muh be done by courts of competent
iurifdittion; and ALTO, that it mutt appear that
the property was condemned either rs contra
band, or belonging TO an eneny.-That in the
preisnt cafe the offence ftated in the decree of
condemnation, being for breach of municipal
laws. the court could have TO iurifdioion, un-
LET'S ieizure was made within juriiical limits,
and not on the high feas.
For the claimant it was contendcd-lh.
81
good title TO the articles in the fire initance--
2dly. That he sheen dveited Of it improper
ly by tLe init, and il was contended witt, great
earneftnefs that Port-au Prince, at the time of
the purchafe, being pofeded by the brigands,
no fae by them could be legal, and therefore
the actor having 10 good title in the hrt in.
fance, cannot claim the iuftice of this court,
and-3i'y. That the capture was made in fIch
away as to enable the purchafers to hold againit
al perfons whatfoever. 1t was alto contended,
that although the decree OF condemnation re-
cites the ordinance of the governoureeneral of
the 10th of March only, yet there were previ-
OTIS ordinances Of a fimilar nature again.s trade
with the brigands, and that the director part of
the decree being The fuhfance, and that declar-
Ing the property 10 he condemned, is fully fulfil
Gent, and that the reaforing on which il is
founded, cannot affect the decree itfelf.
That let the grounds of condemnation be
what they may, by competent court having
jurifdic.ion, ifthe fale is made even before con-
demnHtion, 1t is concufive as TO purchafers.
Much time was continued in producing
number of cafes, in Infurance cafes, which vary
extremely from the prefent, as alto refpetting
condemnation, where the veilel was no. imme-
dately within the ;urifdiction of the court but
in another country.
i do not think it necefIarv, at prefent, TO go
over all ,heie arguments and cafes again. have
formerly decided on the point, and find the cafe
OF 4th Robertion, fupport that deciGon. Inmy
former decree, l examined infinitely all the e.
violence asto the identity of the property, and
If any further proof was wanting, that is fully
fupplied by MIR. Bingiey's.
The only que0ion, therefore, now necefary
for me to lnye'gate, is whether the decree of
condemnation fled in this court, is final and
ccncluhve, or whether this court under the pe-
rlta. H.. e r
1haii be found irrelevant, fay fo.--In that de-
cree, ALTO delivered my opinion, that no tranf-
fer ofproperty could legally take place 20 as TO
GiYet the former owner, without regular pre-
vious condemnation by a court having compe
tertjnrfdiGion how will this apply to the cafe
nov before me-.
The property liheled is forciby taken pofIef-
fion Of on the high ftas, esd February, 1904.
The fale is made fo0n after, and the property
bronehtto Charlefton, the o2d April following,
where it was attached by procefS of this court,
no condemnation of this property took place
until the 18th of July following, and the only
ground Rated for fuch condemnation, is an or
dnance OF the Governour- General of st. Do
ningo, dated the 10th March preceding, and
fubteGnent To the capture--but il is alleged that
there was proof of another ordinance forbiddinp
the trade, in former caufe, if 70, it lould have
been produced again, and made an exhibit if
reliance thereon was contemplated. hold N.Y.
tet hound to determine only according to law,
and the evidence produced or admitted in each
cafe.--lt might be fufficient for me on this &C.
CATION, barely TO refer to former deciions, where
] have thought it neceiIary that regular con-
domination fhould precede faIe, unlefs by or
der of court, with content of parties or in cafe
of pcriihable articles.
Bot when decree of condemnation is bro't
forward, and relied on, and it appears on the
face Of II, that il is grounded on an ordinance,
and that municipal one, pailed fubfequent to
the capture, ought not the decree to be opened
and examined; and can this in any manner flake
the edabihed doctrine thar DEGREES of foreign
tribunals ought to be refpe6ted--I think not
had the property been condemned as belonging
10 an enemy, or as contraband of war, fhould
have thought myfelf bound not to interfere,
and the only remedy !ef: to the owners, would
be that pointed out blythe council for the claim
ant-to apply to the court of the party where
the condemnation was made, or to the execu-
tive of the party injured.
Bin. in the prefent cafe, as the property Of
the ACTOR, wa actually brought into their own
jurifdidion long before any judicial decifon had
taken place eifewhere, and the MARTIAL of this
coGr: had the cuitody oft at leaf three months
prior to any fnch deciiion that alone might
have been caufe fer ordering reftitution, but
when in addition to this it appears, that the de-
cree, declaring this legal prize, is dated to he
in purfuance ofaIocai ordinance, and that made
a 3 r