New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-04-01
't Counsel for plaintiff. B.rili, Dawson Bsrll
UNITED STATES DISTRICT GOURT-MARon 29-Bef
Judge BETS.
NG-fORYHI1URI-NAsSF ONNED Br FOH
RIGSkR-ENIDENCF.

judge BETS.
NG-FoRPBITURL-yEssKL OWNED nj POR-
RrGSkR-EVIDENCF.
Tbe United s'es sst. the BARI Jos-ph
The libel of info III .'iOn charges that the vessel has
leone forfeited the United Sot, because bng an Amer
vessel built in the United states nd eed IN ne name
Of Samuel s. Young citizen Of the United states sss was ~
t.rwS in the mash If June. h. sold aud transferred ny
way trust and cobf!ete to foreign Pinee % VII ogn
Joe Mora subect of the 9ceen Of rain and that such SAFE
end not m,de tnc~n in the manner described o.
sixteenth section If the Art of Congress OF Dec g. 7s en1
AN Act cucendng the regster and recording oil shP an
vese and force Of the twenty seventh section OF
seld act tho BECAME forfeited the Of Unite Ss
The libel theTocpou prays condemnation o' inc 'eslh &C
a. that when arrested within this d'trict and
alleging that s not at the tino Of issuing he 7gte nor
had tseB the property Of sud osed by Don Jose
Mora reurs 10 aint other allegation IN tao ibei
he leaves il to The bs9s to prove the same Glad Ri.
the libel that the bark dd n become loeed IN man
er ssis in heicrmso ale sd Thu. tantamount
TO general demurrer ana presents the question whether
legal Of forfeiture made out upon the allegations oil The
Held l. That she libel defective substance in no.
rirs committed omitted the par Of the ve-.~l
which would be legal Of her forfeiture The only matter
charged that sale and transfer of this vessel was not nide
tie manner directed by law without pecJins ~aat
the law required ~ be done, or what particular ACTS tue
claimant omitted doing
Certain real acts constitute cause OF forfeiture podef
animation il respect this vessel to charge
in the Libel. The allegation Is II stands No more thA1
deduciina Of law il is not the syerInoht u fact
More particularly the libel demands the Structure OF as
cate Of rcSistT, by oresner stating any WINCH under
that section, would be the cause Of forfeiture
t ~,a;n The ;ur;s5ctcp 81 toe Court
tie sutchirg OF the Jurisdiction Of the Court The
mi. ess. ia a6 OF the officers snd complete by
juf smeLt Of forfeiture .essres already mad by them
The information made esSeLA 70 s
scency by the Twe scOud Rule OF the suprerse Court n
Op The p.ocls ~ pai. held
That the lkcin did Lot give testimony LEGALLY aheetin;
vessel that her American certificate OF registry VAS u, d
by that che had beeh :od or transferred to for
eigueI within tie CLiied States OF abroad H., -.
Psro proof 10 these facts be compeec evidence but
Il must cone from parties hsd POWER the vessel to
sale and transfer Of 20 create aud oNe
possession IN uust Of tho vessel and Tor the beaeht OF
s Although there ground Of suspicion that the vessel
bg used con'rsvenron Of the statute IN tust for or
for the the voyage in question yet sd
e9ate evidence authorize her condemnation tor thai eauae IS
rot furnished by the plaintiffs
The he or orrson uTOn ,hi. state Of the pesdinss and
proofs neS ,seoailsJ Be ai,1s'ed, ana &C., va. az
preutou SA certificate 70 tbs; sSe' VII be eH'e'd &c
Libe dismissed
JURISDICTION COSSU, OF FOREIGN POwTR-JoI'DER
Asgustlns valanno at. William ID. Tnomp-Dn
The question in this case came up on demnr'
IN, rtr whehct Ct deb, OvS jointly b. two
Of whom ioresa CoH.a r,dins hee an '0n can be
HELD ~ THE CorRr-T6et eri-iieoa over Al suits against
foIesn CoIsHls SVEN 70 hs Court By so Of C.nsre'
the vitality of the contract, thai shs be
forced equally and the time ssainst al pirne bound
general jurisprudence 20 that method OF redress
That the rule Of common law courts that tue ren-,y OF
creditor uvou h. pursued aguns az wno
united IN Agreement rule OF p.a1iS sai rTIte a1i
not enteTL. into the ob.igsaon Of the contract
That s gles OF practice AMI pleading suboil1re 20
tie legislative authority aid when the Lesstue auti2Tke
mode seton remedy no ousr subject 20 TIE
CUSTOMARY method II couf1ruIg 10 tie law T-s Coat
the doerDes Of common Lac c1urs
tiuS IL the empoy Of EnetlOos OF Iexis.se fane
tor eXprtssly conferred by act Of Congress-
That tie act of CODgre having granted Jurisdiction svsly
tie District Court in respect 70 Consas NAY be ieene -
with other parties IA pfceedias against
ornsr, defendants and reader laut 10 form.
tered INTO by Consul and another several vel joint
these ocs gard 70 the remedy N tn. nosna
jurisdiction this csuse belongs e. Ills CIur-
ord red vdSIent the de;eassat