The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-05-12
United States vs..

Abraham Ogden,
United States vs. SCharles Hong.
0 William Cole,
Samuel Wilkins,
Daniel Phyle,
John Knipe.
WAsH1NsroN, Judge, delivered the opinion
OF the Court.
impressed with the magnitude of the qucs-
| tions which have been discussed. we could
have wished for more time to deliberate up
ON them, and for an opportunity to commit
| to writing the opinion which we have form
ed, that it might have been rendered more
inteillSible to you, and less susceptible of be-
ing misunderstood by others. But we could
not postpone the charge without being guilty
OF the impropriety of suffering the jury to
separate after the arguments of counsel were
closed. or Of keeping them together until
Monday; hardship which we could not
think of imposing upon them. shall pro-
coed, therefore, to state to you, in the best
way can, the opinion of the court upon this
novel and interesting case.
1t may not be improper, in the first place
to refresh your minds with a short history of
the transactions which have led to the offence
with which these defendants are charged /;
and to consequences which might have been
OF serious import to the nation.
Gideon Olmstead and three others, having
i
the latter part of the year 1878, were put ON
board the sloop Active, at Jamaica, as pri-
soners OF war; in order to be conducted to N.
1 York, whittier this vessel was destined with
supplies for the British troops.
| Turing the voyage, Olmstead and his COM
paniohs, who had assisted in navigating the
! vessel, formed the bold design of taking
her from the enemy; in which, with great
hazard to themselves, they ultimately sue
ceeded. Having confined in the cabin the
ofhcers, passengers, and most of the men,
they steered for some port in the U. States. &
| had got within five miles of Egg harbour,
when capt. Houston, commanding the brig
Convestion, belonging to the state of Pennsyl-
vania, came up with them, and captured the
Active as prize. The sloop was conducted
| to Philadelphia, and libelled in the court of
Admiralty, established under an act of the
legislature ofthat state.
Claims were filed by Olmstead and his as
sociates, for the whole of the vessel and
cargo, ana by James Josiah, commander of a
private armed vessel, which was in sight
at the time of the capture by Houston, for
proportion of the prize. Dispositions were
taken IN the cause. A jury was impanellcd
TO try 1t. The Question of fact was, whether
the enemy was completely sabdued or not,
by Olmstead and his companions, at the time
wien Capt. Houston came up with them.-
The jury, without stating a single fact, found
general verdict, for one fourth TO Ohm
stead and his associates, and the residue to
Houston and Josiah, t. be divided accor-
ulnS TO law and to an agreement between
them. From the sentence of the court upon
this verdict, Olms,ead appealed to the court
OF appeal lnprize causes established by con-
gress, ~nere after hearing of the parties.
the sentence OF the admiralty court was re-
verseo; the whole prize decreed to the ap-
pellants and process was directed to issue
from the court of Admiralty, commanding.
the Marshall to sell the vessel and cargo
and topay over the net proceeds to those clai
maints The Judge of the court of Admiral
y refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of
the court of appeals over a verdict found in
the interior court; directed the marshal to
make the sale. and TO bring the proceeds in
to court. This was done; and the Judge ac-
knowledged the receipt of the money, on the
marshaPs return. In May iI79, George
Ross, the Judge of the Court of Admiralty,
delivered over to David Rittenhouse, treasu-
rer OF this state, Gil ,496 9 9 in loan-ofrice
certificates issued in his own name, being
the proportion of the prize money to which
the state was entitled by the sentence of
The inferior court of admiralty-Rittcn-
house at the same time executed a bond
to Ross, obliging himself, his heirs, execn-
tors &c to restore the sum SO paid in case
Toss should, by due course of law, be COM
pciled to pay the same according to the
decree OF the court of appeals. In the condi-
ton OF this bond, the obliger is described as
being treasurer of the state; and the money
IS stated as having been paid to him for the
use OF the state. Indents were issued to Rit-
tenhouse OH the above certificates, and these
were afterwards funded, i'm the name of Rit-
tenhouse tor the benefit of those who might
~ h. k..I~ II
after tho death of Rittenhousc, these certi-
hcates, together with the interest thereon
which had been received, came to the hands
OF Mrs. Sergeant and Mrs. Waters, his re-
representatives.. The paper which covered
the Certificates was endorsed in the hand
writing OF Mr.. Rittenhouse with memoran-
dunn declaring they will be the property of
the state of Pennsylvania when the state re-
leased him from the bond given to George
RoSs, Judge of the admiralty, for paying the
so original certificates into the treasury as
the states share of the prize. No such re-
lease ever was given. The certificates thus
remaining IL the possession of the Represen-
tauyes OF Rittenbouse, Olmstead fled his Ii.
bel against them in the district court of Penn
sylvania, prayiug execution of the decree of
the court OF appeals. Answers were filed by
these ladies; but no claim was interposed
nor any suggestion made of interest on the
part OF the state, and in January 1908. the
court decreed in favor of the libellants, On
the second of April in the same year, the
legislature of Pennsylvania paesed /, lou,