The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-03-27
ruE CASE AGAIN IN COURT.
Examination Of ]. n. Forbes, Ons Oh the
Owners of the Meteor.
The Other Parties Interested I'm
the Vessel.
INTERESTING PROCEEDINGS.
sc. sc. sc.
United states d istrict Court.
Before Judge Betta

United states District Court.
Before Judge Betta
MARCH The United States againa He Steamship
Acteor-This case which set down for to-day
for hearing the opening Of the court Very
sid rabe interest manifested in the case particularly
ameng tho legal fraternity, some eminent members Of
which represent the natonaties nearly invoi
we'd on the questions ut issue Judge Belts who 1t 70
DO regretted suffering from influenza took his seat al
half past eleven when the case was At once caned on
The government represented by the United States
District Attorney Hon. Daniel 8 Dickinson, and s. G.
Courtney, Esq, with whom were associated hesss
Webster and Craig supposed to DO peaont behalf Of
the Spanish government Tho claimants and owners OF
the vessel the Messrs Forbes, Of Boston, ably
represented by W. N. Eyarts and Joseph IL Choute
Esqs
When the case called there was considerable
discussion between the opposing counsel to the order
of proceeding, which finally resulted in the decision Of
the bench that the opening lay with the defendants
MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.
Mr.. Evarts then contepded that there was no issue
offered except upon tho merits OF the case and this
he took with the learned District Attorney who
desired to proceed upon the hearing OF exceptions
the complaint put In by the defence In this the
government like all other lbeilan,s proceeds in rem,
and they entitled to take the points of their proscu-
ton by condemnation of the vessel. And unless
ligant into and accepts trial the
framed and the merits in this the government
Is defeated That Is the position Of tho prosecution here
If litigant comes in then condemnation Of the thing
seized goes by default II q ltgant does not
in condemnation to all other parties
goes by default They rase tho question that
we arc not tho owners entitled to ltgate.
The whole question turns that point But
shy that II is not dcrmcn TO the government that
the other have left their rights unreprcsepted
and 80 not to be tgated If they have done 80 that
Is all tho better for tho government The ship Meteor,
without reference to her ownership Is incupated for
accomplished attempted violation Of the Neutrality
act II person appears to contest this she will be
demned The Messrs Forbes, Of Boston, come In under
rule Of this court properly represented by their agent
aud congncc Of the sh and who in possession Of
it when taken by tho government They plead that they
the OF tho ship and the sole and lawful
owners of the chip Now. II the owners doubt
that they the owners and the proper hgans and
with them to reard and oppose tina
nahcn let them say 80 in the Of the Kate But
SO long ss y their exceptions they admit they are
tho owners, and simply aIlcge in legal purror
and intent that there other owners, they
"a Sne any s me 70
In and iigale for their interests although other owners
such there be- choose 70 have their shares Of interest
u the proof And In regard 70 their ella and It's valid
ny and integrity ther, Is no question thai they are the
claimants and entitled intervene, Notwithstanding
that there are other parties who ght intervene and
fall 70 do 90 Il Is impor,a. for the prosecution 70
certain parties were owners Of her tho time Of the
alleged crInality but must DO at that particular time
to be Important on the merits and 70 show that they
have admitted, or stated, or acted In tho premi-
Sos, TO furnish matter of condemnation Of the ship
| That II question Of fact for the jury, whether
these men were the owners al the tme and whesher BY
their admission their acts they In any WY incupated
the All that required OF interviewer and all
the Mossrs Forbes is that al the time OF this In
owned rope Or spar in the ship the mo Of the Grim
inay and II s only TO tbevesse seized from them
a. owners .nat ne ,n.efSemu .S, takes p'acs inc
before the seizure. and day or week after the accom-
pishment Of the Illegal oct and yet they are the right,
been for si,ed or not II their ioss though without
fault II forfsAed and ,hey the litigation 70 put the
governments must prove IL The thing 70 Try here
Is shs question Of fact, 10 try the case
full owners Of the shipths they deny. They say that
there other owners therefore the affirmative rcts
must DO disproved by the i,igantsths prosecution In
this matter
Mr. Dickinson replied Tho litgants here claim be
the sole owners Of this vessel AID that mo other parties
this thereof Now, In exception we say
that the Mesrs Forbes not Mt tho time Of the for
| fcitrrc the alleged libel aforesaid, and not
tho sole Of sad steamship and tackle,
10 Thcy say thcy were the soie true and lawful
ownenl We INSERT the contrsry--tbat Is the alega-
ton. New they must prove that they arc the Sole
owners aud no Other pcrson or persons arc owners
or hold ownership interest therein Wo deny, there
fore, any iss,u the allegation Of interest Suppose
there two ownors VI this valuable vessel when the
question H. raised and issue frnmed would you try
case by one owner and if sacco,su in the claim de-
liver the vessel IN tina oner Certanly not il IL neces
sary for tho due administered Of justice that the lawful
owners should DO those who hlo tho claim In court
and ~ gaze And 80 IN oil proceedings In all tho COURTS
high or low Where rs ncccssary for the admns.ra
ton of justice preliminary issues should be held In
that other parties should be brought In and bs
treated u necessary, real parties We cannot treat
only tho owners, but the sole, truo and lawful
owners; that s denied by tho exceptional plead ngs We
must first this question Of intervening interests before
being required to liIisaso the It's merits We
ready to try tho case ON It's mers but We want TO ct
for hearing the preliminary issues-on excop-
| tonA
sdcng any evidence at this stage mma,ersI permitted
the examination Of witnesses the ownership shs
affirmative beng thrown on the prosecution
EXAMINATION or JOHN NJ FORBES.
| John NJ. Forbes examined by Mr. Webster-Q What
who comprise ihs nrmi A. Edward s. Hale, VIM. II
ho'' ssrse. m. %S,ss Of ~ A so Are ysa
| and X. d. Forbes partnerss A. MOI not In any
ns sense, escS s. r. ,Ss common aessn,.ns
He docs not belong TO my firm. . How much money
did you personally pay for the construction o. this vs
| SELF A. don't know. q Have you paid anything A.
| ! have. Y How do you know you paid somcthnsf
A. by recollection Can you not rceo s d the
q Yourself, A. Myself q Did you own thai ,n,eres,
al thu time the ship was scizeds A. Yea 2 Who
owned tho remainder A. A. tho time tho ship was
seized owned one half and r. b Forbes owned ths
other half. q And you paid $500 00 for your hair A.
Yes; rccollect one tune that paid 100000. y Was
that for halt OF the shipS A. can't say what share
that purchayed q when did you paw the 500 Door
A. AT various tines y To whomf A. The shipouidcr:
for machine shops and tho various costs VI building tho
ship v Then you pad $40 900 towards constructing
the shipi A Towards constructing tho ship and for
oquipments q Did few friends In Boston assist
you and your brother IN building the Nctcoff
| Objected 10 Ne immatcrial letter here put In
signed X b. Forbes directed TO " e. schmidt Esq, New
YORK In which the former states tia, he cannot DIX the
price which the Meteor would be sold ti he had
suited few friends who had assisted himself and
| brother in building H. Objection overrucdl
| Qoosiion repeated We bad assistance from o great
many friends q Then you bad pecunary assistance
fror. frisndsy A I think had help from the bank
several Zines y In any other sense Than a loan VI
moaeyf A No. q We're there any other owners IN
| 1867 A. don't know. q And yol say You were par,
l The Maanr suiarnl.r lshh ax,l.nlt knn,x