Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-11-25
Aaw Intelligence.
SLAVE TRADE.

BOMBAY, May Ion Wednesday
last, in the Instance Side OF the Vice-Ad-
miralty Court of Bombay, tie learned
Judge pronounced judgment in the case
of the ship Sullamany. This is cause of
considerable Importance, and we regret
that we have no accurate reports of the
arguments of tie learned advocates OH
each side, or OF his Lordship's speech in
giving Judgment. The ship sailed from
this port al March, 1916, bound for Mus
cat, Busliire and Bussorab, with "a cargo
ofvarious merchandise, taken in OH freight
for those ports: she arrived al Muscai, de-
lNered the part et her cargo destined for
that port, ana took la other cargo ior But
shire and Bnssorali, together with scver3-
Arab passengers and fourteen natives of
Africa. She sailed from Muscat on The
2iili May, and Of the 18th June WIS fall
len i'll with by ii. NJ. ship Favorile, Cap
tam the Hon. J. 4. Maude,S who seized
her, and sent her IL Bombay, for having
slaves oil board. She was libcl!ed in the
Vice Admiralty court for having on boarc..,
when she was fallen in With by the Eavo-
rite, dltersInen, women and children, sub
iecls and inhabitants of Africa, which
had been carried from Africa 10 Muscat,
for the purpose OF being dealt with as
slaves, and which " ere detained or board
the ship Sullamany, for the purpose of
being carried away, and imported into
some other place as slaves, andt to be sold,
dealt with and transferred as slaves tie
ship Sullumany al that time sailing UNI
der British flag, being commanded by
Francis Ringrose, a British subject, having
OIL bOarda pass front the governor of Bonn
bay, as British ship, owned by British
subjects, and having alsoa port clearance
from Bombay, and other papers and docu-
ments, purporting to show, that she was a
British ship and owned by a British sub
iect, navigaicd according TO the laws of
the United Kingdom.
Ii appeared IN evidence, that Muscatis
a notorious mart for slaves that large
feet of dows, with slaves on board, arrived
from Africa few days before The Sulla-
many left Muscat, and that capt Ringrose,
when tie negroes were brought on board,
refused 10 take them, aiiedglng they were
slaves, and that the ship would be liable
TO seizure il met with by any of his majes-
tvs ships that lie demonstrated with the
Nacoda, and threw down on deck the or
der for receiving them. The Nacoda sta
ted they were passengers, not slaves OH
which MIR. RiDgrese SAID that they might
30 IA tie ship, IT he chose 10 stuli6 10 iiIe
consequences. In 1918, Bombay pass
was granted 10 Hadjee Seroor bin Yacoob
and EbralI1 bin Husson Stunt, ON theirap
plicaiiop tOills government, accompanied
with THEN affidavit that they were settled
inhabitants OF Bombay, and had lived there
with their families for upwards of 5years,
being the sole owners of the said ship
that they had not taken the oath ofallegi-
ance 10 any foreign state, and that no TO-
reigncrh had any share IN The ship. This
pass was renewed iii 1916, on applica
ton made by some person acting for and
in the name of Hadjee Seroor, but no at
fidavit was made when the pass was re-
new ed.
On the part ofthe impugnanf, it was
Admitted that in 1913, he was what he then
described himself to be Ill the affidavit /;
but ii was contended that, having subse-
quently sold all his property i'll Bombay,
and having gone TO live with his family in
Muscat, he had abandoned The character
acquired by his domicile in Bombay, aud
resumed lis original Arab one. Evidence
was given in support Of this fact, and hat
the ship had sailed under ille Arab col
ors subsequently 10 1918. /, was further
con ended, that as he had come 10 Bombay
in December, 1915, for ihesole purpose 81
releasing his ship fr1m an arrest, and had
returned TO MuScat aASoOnas thatpurpose
was effected, he could moi he considered as
a person residing ia The cOmpauy's domin-
ions, and that tie granting tie pass TO ihe
ship couldnot FIX that character upon lin,
as there was no proofbelOre the court that
he had applied for it under any such re-
presentation as he had made in 1873
Evidence was also gwen, IL prove that the
slaves were all eniaucipaied previously TO
their having been embarked IN the Sua-
many, and that they were all tlIe freed and
voluntary servants of the Arab passengers
on board the ship.
The learned Judge in giving Judgment,
commented with considerable severity on
the inconsistency Ofthe testimony of Sc
VCral of the witnesses called to support
The allegation fthe emancipation of The
children, aud tile gross aud palpablc tam
perlDg thai had been committed wilh the
slaves, who had now been led to slate Ia
court that The dispositions they had Tor
merry made, OF their being slaves, and
their relations of the different modes IN
which they had been carried of from their
native country and sold as slaves, we're
all lies which they had bcen induced 10
tell from the Influence of the prize mas
Ter, but, that now they were all detcrini-
ned to speak the truth, aud that none Of
them were or ever had been slaves. The
Judge, after pointing ont also manifest
contradiction in the testimony ofthc ow-
ner OF four of the slaves, who swore dis
tmctly That he had bought two oftircm IN
the slave Bazaar at Muscat aud afterwards
emaucipaied them Tor charity, whilst one
of the children swOre he never had been
bought, procecdedto pronounce sentence
Decentralization on HE ship, on the gTonnd
that the impugnant lIadiec Seroor ban
Nacoob had on tue oath Of MAY, lSl6,as
sisted in carrying apdexpnrting from Mus