The New York herald., 1866-03-28
THE ALLEGED PRIVATEeR METEOR.

tho claimants Messrs Forbes of Boston, had their case
sustained by Messrs W. NJ Evarts ami Joseph Choate.
EXAMINATION j. NJ FORBES.
Mr. j. H. Forbes deposed In re- ply TO questions by Mr.
Dickinson-The register OF the ship taken out under
the general authority Of Carey CO.. either by letter or
personally gave directions to either Mr. Carey or the
captain to take out the register.
To Mr. Evarts-I cannot say whom the ship was I'm
ishcd the ownership was IN me and my brother; we
were supreme dicator 10 all matters about the ship
have conducting the ships business up to this tme
her accounts passed In my books; J. N. Forbes Co
paid for the engine&
10 sir webster-J NJ. Forbes / Co. appeared ON the
books partners with myself the owners II tho Meteor
have met think there several Of the owners
Of the ship with whom have never exchanged word;
Mr. Ward Of Detroit, have not met am certain In
regard having exchanged word with him about
the ship cannot say that had any specific con-
vcrsatou with Mr.. Aspinwa as to the management OF
the ship; may have spoken to him about this trial.
may have written to Mr. Lowe and Mr.. Jerome.
Q. Where were the payments made for the ships A
Sometimes they were made by Robert Forbes aud some
times bs j. W. Forbes 4 Co. we settled the bills when
they due, and after that some of the gentlemen
whom have named paid their pr0portion one has not
paid at all; Mr. Jerome and MI Lowe may have paid
their proportions, but the account Is still open 1t is not
squar'.
@ Was ther, any agreement between John NJ. Forbes
Co, Robert Forbes & Co and the other gentlemen you
have namei with reard to their pecun'ary relation to
the shi,2 A. No doubt there understanding but
cannot what was without referring to letters and
q What was The arrangement az to the uamo of J. NJ
FORBES c., and Robert Forbes being in the resister?
A. those parties consulted with; the ship to
b. registered in our name we we're TO have the sale;
the other parties had confidence in us and said "Dont
bother about it,"
To Mr. Evarts-Thc owners OF the vessel have not
come together body on the business OF the ship.
TESTIMONY MIR. F. W. LOWE.
Mr.. r. !. Lowe examined-I belong to the nrm of T..
L. Lowe Brothers. that irm were not orig nay interested
in the trcton OF the vessel but she progressed
firm at aimed interest Of $4,000, which sub
sequeny increased to sl6 Ooo the legal title 10 the ship
remained In Mr. Forbes; had perfect confidence in
Mr. Forbes; understood that the vessel built for
the government aud that nothing Illegal wonld be done
with her; never got any bill Of sale of the ship
q Can YOU say whether you had actual ownership in
the vessef
The Court objected.
O. If the vessel had been burned lost, what would
have become of your interest?
wtnessIt would Of course have BEEN burned or lost
O. Then you had an inlercslp II the vessel had been
sold what would have been your interest? It would
have rn, interest, according to the contr button
exc ,p that arising from the contribution have stated
Has the control Of the vessel by Messrs Forbes aud
the ownership been cordng to the agreement by which
The Court objected to this question, it did not tend
to bring OFT any material fact.
Q. Have any claim on the Messrs. Forbes except
for accountability for sic, 900 you paid. a. No.
To Mr.. webster-we did but insist that the vessel
should be sold aud that she should 20 abroad
EvIDHScs AsIrSwArL.
Mr. Aspnwali examined by Mr. Dick lnson-Two years
ago got interest in the vessel to the amount o; ten
thousand dollars that interest still retain with
advance; Mcssrs. Forbes were 10 build tne vesso 10
catch the bscoksds runners - -.
n1 vessel simply because the obect for which she
built had passed away had interest in the
csps s ssc9 inability cf Messrs Forbes when the vessel
sSsy rcs az ns CON, 1Sos 1Ss,.a ~ IN, ,,
from time 70 time In the year before he close Of the
war; the whole Of my contribution thirynye thoa-
sand dollars; the understanding that tho sh
N be q government vessel; gave tina, money With
patriotic motive, so that the vessel might catch the
inter .sted to the extent Of nv contribnt on Wa
TO Mr. Evarts-' cssrs Forbes were to build the ship
| and have the tito 10 H.
| NOTION TO STRIKE our rmx cIax
Mr. Webster said that they now presented the point
| that tho claimants had not the interest in
| the vessel that they assumed in court. II
| the interest In the rss set up By the claim.
ant be ms icient TO eniitle him to that character aud
he refused to make the required affidavit II would be
subject to preliminary obje lion ard would be rejected
on that ground Upon the evidence before the court,
was plain that did not show sufficient proprietary
interest on the part OF the claimants nerpose AMI
object to the seizure Of the ship The motion he had to
make was that this Claim, on the evidence produced and
on The issue now trying should no strucs out. The
lea ned counsel referred TO some law authorities In sup
port Of his argument
Mr. Evarts replied Ho said the facts proved in the
cleares manner tina, X + Forbes and j. NJ Forbes
the ouv persons who had standing Admiralty
n part having claim to give them footing In this
case From the moment the ship was planned to the
present time the Mossrs Forbes had clured legal
10 the ship evidenced by documents required
by the Law of tho Uni'ed States ewnershIp II was
proved that the only two persons WHO had an interest
arising from the contributions were the Mes rs Forbes
and that the own rshp control aud representation or the
ship were to DO vested In them though there might be
rc'ung trust TO other persons. These other parties
had onl such trust a, ths law imposed, arising opt Of
the contribution Of money.
Mr.. Dickinson observed that some OF the witnesses
spoke OF The patriotic objects for which the vessel
built rhry found that the Ownership OF The vessel
made some fifteen persons With the exception of
tho care and management Of the ship they had gone
raj ownership. These fifteen owners stood equally
Thor interests were alike In every respect They
pro rata owners according their contributions They
were tenants In cvmmou-not even part ovners-they
owned the ship together. The learned counsel the
othr side read authorities TO whether the OF
mere equitable interest CO I'D be n party the claim
when registering vessel shall do So On oath IN the
form prescribed by law and set forth oath the pro-
portion belonging to each The object OF registering
vessel Is to tell the truth and not falschood That
register was placed the record to protect the gov
ernment The only ground upon which ihey could sock
10 was that they had falsely registered for bat
the call IL by. II was not true that J. NJ
Forbes and X. NJ Forbes the sole owners OF
this vessel What the evidence In tn, CASEY They
had various persons from time to time contribut ng
various sums OF money to tho vessel which lett in
the charge Of Messs Forbes who were to manage her
NJ. Aspinwai Mr.. Lowe and Mr. Jerome were drawn
upon, rs own ~ In common, for advances ~ compct,
the ship What possible right had the Mcssrs Forbes
put the record record OF the vessel when
there fifteen other who copr bu,sdf
majority OF the entirely unreprcsentd fact
aud In substance. Tho Messrs Forbes to hold the
vessel; but gavc them ownership because thcy had
the cement Of the ship II Messrs Jerome Aspn.
wall and Love had gained m interest by having their
names placed upon the registry, and left on the names
Of all the Others would hat take away the to of all
the othcrsf No certainly Tho requirements Of the
registry entirely for other purposes and instead ~
having any advantage from this registry he found they
guilty vi breach Of the Lac In placing " there
Mr.. Jerunc was an owner 10 a considerable extcnt
80 was NJ Lowe. was Mr. Aspinwal. They were en.
trcly unrcpr scncj and tn, only distinction was that
Mr. Forbes TO have the msnagcmen OF the ship
ard look ont for purchaser. That did nos give him
legal tito whatever There were OF the owners
not consulted 20 tho registry o the ship IN the namo
OF Mr. Forbes, and not n scintia of evdcu had ap
Ictrei IN the showing that there any quaicl
on or embarrassment with respect to these ten m n.
1hcr title was complete for cvcry purpose except the
management OF the ship II the vessel was sold they
were 60 have their share pro rata according 10 tcr con
tribu'ons II the vessel lost their interests would
b. lost also Tho vessel belonged 10 them tenants In
common with the Others. One could not have more
right IN her than another except the tso persons Who
were appointed ascnts