, 1859-04-22

the veil which conccaIs this part of the
case.
Forbes, one of the agents Of the Pacific
NJ. S. S. Co., in his deposition, states that
the agents, whose Office and place Of buSi-
ness was in San Francisco, and generally
known to the citizens, "hnd the control,
possession and management Of the ships Of
said company croept The Constitution"
The decree of the District Court of San
Francisco shows that the legal title was in
Ebenezer Knight, and the equitable title
was in p M S. s. Co.; that on the first
day Of September, A. D. 1851, Knight as
agent aud in trust for the said 2. M. s. S
Co., became the legal owner of said steam
ship Constitution; that from the time he
became the owner, the said ship up to the
3Oth day of June, 1857, was inthe posses
sion, under the exclusive control, and in
the use and employment of the said p. M.
S. s. Co., and Of its agents, and servants,
as the property Of the said company. On
the 9th day Of July, A. D. 1857, Carlisle
Patterson, administrator Of the estate Of
e, Knight, deceased, conveyed the legal
title to the said ship Constitution to the p.
NJ. S. S. Co., in pursuance Of the decree Of
tie District Court aforesaid. Mensesheimer
& Lightner, by bill Of sale made by the p.
NJ. S. S. Co., became the legal owners on
the Sth day of July, 1857, aud in the exc
cutiOn of the bottomry bond to G. A. Low,
dated 18th day Of August, A. D, 1851,
Lightner &> Mensesheimer executed the
same as owners, and james NJ Hunt as
master aud commander, which most con
clusively repels the presumption attempted
to be raised by the plaintiffs counsel that
Hunt was the owner, aud that in the
double capacity of owner and Master, he
departed the ports of California in the said
steamship Constitution. Mensesheimer &
Lightner, by this bill Of sale, became the
legal owners on the Sth day Of July, 1857.
J, II. Scranton deposes that the repairs
were mostly made while the ship was in
the hands Of Knight, and that II she had
been transferred to Hunt he would have
been an equal owner. 1t is patent that
these repairs were not put upon this ship
for the benefit Of the P. NJ s. S. Co., for
if she had been transferred to Hunt under
the agreement with Davidge, the company
had taken the precaution to guard against
responsibility from that quarter. As the
Davidge contract was not completed, and
no transfer Of the ship to Hunt under that
agreement, the n Iairs could not have been
for the benefit Of Hunt, who then was the
owner from May up to July 9Th, 1857 :
That the legal title was in Knight, who
held in trust for certain purposes; Of this
there can be no question. The transfer Of
the legal title was made by P. NJ, S. S.
Co. to Meusesheimer 4 Lightner, July 9Th,
1851. ALI of the circumstances point 10
the fact that this was but the consomma-
tion Of a prior existing contract on the
part OF these parties with the P. NJ S. S.
Co. This being the case, they were the
parties whS were interested in having the
vessel fitted for the seas, and the only
parties who had any interest in the subject.
Seeking as we are compelled to do,
amidst mass Of contradictory testimony,
for basis upon which to found our rulings
in this case, we have sought with patient
diligence aud most dispassi0nately, for the
legitimate conclusions Of facts established
by the testimony,
The conclusion which has forced itself
upon our minds Is that Mensesheimer &
Lightner we're the equitable owners Of the
steamship Constitution during the time
when these liabilities we're incurred. II is
necessary, therefore, that the residence Of
Mensesheiner aud Lightner should be de-
termined by the facts of the case for the
purpose Of fixing the character Of this
vessel, either as a foreign or domestic ship.
So fur as ownership goes upon this subject,
there is but little testimony, and that not
entirely free from conflict
w. r. WadsUorth, states that be knew
the parties from the latter part Of June,
1851; that Msnsesheimer resided in San
Francisco sometimes absent, and believes
that it was in September or the hrst part
Of October that he left. He says Isaac
Lightner has resided here (San Fraucisco)
from the period he became acquainted with
him until the 9Th day Of July, 1851; on
which day be left in the steamer Constitu-
tlon--returued on the Constitution after
the jettison; and in August following, left
by steamer for Washington Territory,
where he believes be has since resided.
For the purpose Of repelling any pre-
sumption which might be raised by this
testimony as to the residence Of Menses-
heimer 4 Lightner, the testimony Of A. j
Moses is offered TO show that after the
legal title to this vessel passed to Menses-
heimer 4 Lightner, that Bightner made OF
came into court for the purpose Of making
his application for naturalization. Under
what circumstances this application was
made, whether to supply the loss Of papers
or for ether reasons, does not appear In
opposition to this, We have the oath Of
Lightner as to the fact of his citizenship
In this we think there is nothing eGecting
his rights as citizen. Some testimony
was offered to show that Mensesheimer was
in his minority, and as to residence; bVt
we think there was nothing in this qualify.
ing bis residence--and as to the question
of age, even il his minority had been salts
factorily established court Of equity would