The national Republican., 1867-02-19
THE COURTS.
SUPREME COuRr OF ruE UsnED STATES

ID,
No. 13i. Michael Thompson, plaintiff In error,
vs.. Thomas y, Bowie. Ia error TO the Supreme
Court Of the District of Columbia. Mr.. Justice
Davis delivered the opinion Of the court reversing
the judgment Of the said Supreme Court In this
cause and remanding the cause, with directions TO
award usnirs fdeids de MORO.
No. 1903. The United States, appellants, vs.. @.
A. Weed and y. A. Blydenburgh, claimants, &c.
Appeal from the District Court for the Eastern
District Of Louisiana. Mr.. Justice Miller deiv.
cred the opinion Of the court, Affirming the decree
Of the said District Court In this cause.
No. 4l2. KinTio, Bates, plaintiff in error, vs.
William II. Brown. In error TO the Circuit Court
OF the United States for the Northern District Of
Illinois Mr.. Justice SuAyne delivered the opinion
Of the court In this cause, Affirming the judgment
OF the said Circuit Court In this cause With costs
No. 1872 Allen Robbins, plaintiff In error, vs..
The City Of Chicago In error to tho Circuit Court
OF the Unitad States for tho Northern district Of
Illinois Mr.Justice Clifford delivered the opinion
Of tho court affirming the Judgment Of the said Cir.
cult Court in this cause with costs and interest
No. 337. The Merchants Insurance Company,
appellants, vs.. James Ritchio. Appeal from the
Circuit Court Of the United States for the district
Of Massachusetts,. Mr.. Chief Justice Chase de-
ivered the opinion Of the court dismssing the ap-
peal in this cause for want Of Jurisdiction.
No. 140.sLesseo of Robert NJ Croxall, plaintiff
in error, vs.. John NJ. sherard. The argument Of
this cause was commenced by Mr.. Brent, Of ooun-
sci for the plaintiff In error.
Adjourned until tomorrow at IL o'clock.
PriEs-Tsritorial Immunity from CAPTURE
The United States Vs. The Bark T'rs,ita and
Cargo. This was another Of the Rio Grando cases
Tho TeresitA vas q Spanish vessel, owned in Ha-
yana, captured while at anchor of the Rio Grande
with cargo Of cotton on board. shipped BY two
parties, Mexican and Spanish subjects, purpOrting
to reside at Matamoras, for Havana. The cargo is
claimed by the consignors-251 bales by jose San
Roman, "a merchant residing at Matamoras," +" and
bales by B. Garcia Bro, Mexican subjects 70.
siding in Matamoras." The claims are made by
the agents Of those parties respectively at New Or.
leans.
The master swoars that they were the owners Of
the cargo. The outward cargo to Matamoras ap.
pears TO have Deen Of an innocent character-sugar
and raisins. Tho master, although he swears as 10
the ownership Of the cargo does not state that the
homeward bound cargo Of cotton was brought from
Matamoras.
The prize was taken to the port Of New Orleans,
and thoro hbelod and subsequently, restored to
the claimants, the court taking the view that the
capture was made In neutral waters, and there.
fore unlawful. The Government appealed to this
court and argued that the evidence as to the place
Of capture appears to preponderate In favor OF the
view Of the district judge and the present position
Of the counsel for the clamants but II Is believed
by the counsel for the Government and cnptors al
contended In the case Of the Sir William Peel the
Dashing Wave, and others Of this class Of cases.
the question Of territorial immunity in the prize
court, and that therefore the question does NOT
legally arise upon the existing claims.
The court cannot and will not shut its eyes to the
facts already developed In regard to the character
and methods Of the system Of traffic in cotton
which prevailed at Matamoras at the time Of thiI
| capture that most Of this cotton never had any
commercial SitHJ at Matamoras, and, even II landed
there before shipment board Of the vessels lying
of the Rio Grande, never became incorporated into
the common stock Of the port that the purchase:
OF such cotton were made In Texas, from rebel enc
mics who under all the disabilities Of the con
hscation act Of 1862, and totally incapable Of trans
ferring any title to property against the United
States and that, in many instances the shpme mt.
were really on account Of hostile persons, though
ostensibly on account Of neutras residing at Mata
moras for the more convenient prosecution Of this
unlawful and demoraliEng business all this abun.
dantly appears from the records in other cases be-
| fore the court
In view Of these facts II Is incumbent upon the
claimants in every case of property taken in tbiI
"Matamoras trade" to give satisfactory evidences
that they acquired the property after II had be
come incorporated into the common stock of III,
neutral port, and that 1t was proceeding, at the
time Of capture to the port of intended destination
wholly on neutral account, and this with the view
OF establishing the exceptional lawfulness and in.
nocence Of their particular transactions
In every case where the facts on which the legal
ty OF the trade In question depends do not clearly
appear In the preparatory proofs and papers, the
court should make an order upon the claimants for
further proof to those facts unless the claimants
are precluded from adducing such proofs by the
rules which prevail in prize court on that subject
and final adjudication Of the claims should be post
poned until the necessary proof on the points men
toned is adduced.
The claimants make a lengthy argument and
submit that in any view Of the case the Teresitl
was entitled to be discharged, and that the iudg
ment Of tho learned justice below was correct
Whether 1t is considered the vessel was In Mex
can waters, las proved by the evidence,) or Al
having driftsd into American waters, there was al
entire absence Of any criminal intent The Who'll,
proof shows, beyond any question, that the idea o
violating the rules Of the blockade as established b,
| law, never entered the minds Of master or mate
These rules were not framed to work with oppres
sive hardship on vessels whose only offences wer,
valuable cargoes, and anchors too light for heav,
gale.
The decision below is supported by the law, th,
evidence, and those principles Of fairness and eaut,
which alone make the peculiar character Of priz,
tribunal endurable to neutrals. The suppositionl
and differences and close computations Of interested
parties are on par in point Of value with reportl
Of what excited witnesses may say in an uplntslIi
gible language. Neither Of these should be si
| lowed to prevail against direct proof the nYoba
bilites Of the ease and an honest intent.
Henry Stanbory and j. Hublsy Ashton for IN,
United States g. Evans for captorsj F. R. Conder
for claimant '''
Gen. BOWIs'S Gambling Case Decided A9aiu,
Hm-I The Rule of Evidence as 10 GAMING Con
,dsratiOns-Miehad Thompson p,. Thomas +
6o0's-This suit was on promisSory notes Of the
defendant given, as alleged, for gaming consid
Grafton. The case will be remembered by readers Of
this paper
On the trial the defendant was unable 10 prov,
his defence directly and was allowed by the court
show that on the date Of the notes he was grossly
intoxicated that when under the influence q
liquor he was inclined to gamble, and that tbs
payee Of the notes, ono Steers, kept at the time
gaming house in this city, where the notes were
made. Upon this evidence the verdict was for tbs
defendant, and plaintiff appealed. The court now,
Per Mr. justice Davis, rendered opinion reversing
that judgment holding that to allow sueb a a..
fence to be so proven would be to oyerturn ali The
established rules Of evidence. '''