The national Republican., 1867-01-24
The oourts,
surRrxr eovRr o. rnr UNITED STATES:

SUPREME OouRr or THr UNITED STAIRS
go. a. wrD.s'PaI, 5snaa,y = 1857
go, Of the State Of Illinois, was admitted an at.
tornsy and counsellor Of this court.
No 15. Henry 6turday, st al, PLAINTIFF, 70.
Benj. J. Jaokaway, Of al On certificate Of
division In opinion between the judges Of the Cir
suit Court q the United ststs, for the Eastern
the opinion Of the court answering the questions
csrtifed In the Affirmative.
No. i1o. Albert 3. Goodrich, st al, appellants,
70. the city Of Chicago. This cause was argued BY
Mr. Goodwin, sf counsel for the Appellants, and
submitted on printed argument by Mr. Irwin, Of
No. III. Noah q. Mash, st al, plaintihs In error,
70. Lemuei Towne, st al The argument Of this
cause was commenced by Mr.. Lynde, OF counsel for
the plalntiff. In error eontinusd BY Mr. Waldo, Of
counsel for the defendants In error, and ooncludsd
BY Mr.. Lynde for the plaintiis In error.
No. IFS Aionso Campbell, plaintiff in error, vs.
the city Of Ksnsshs. The argument Of this cause
was commenced BY Mr.. Lynds, Of counsel for the
plaintiff In error. ..
Adjourned until to-morrow at IL o'clock.
TIE Prise Lac, : Further Proof - Probable
Cons--Costs 70 CsptOrs--Procf of. Character 81
Cargo - The United Siotss appellant ~. The
Steamer Pearl sRd Cargo George Wigg, Claim
ant, The Pearl and cargo were captured BY the
Tioga Janusry 20, 1893, about sixty or seventy
miles from Nassau, and hbeled as prize Of war In
the Florida District Court In February following.
WIN. Jolly, master claimed the vessel on behalf o.
the cargo on behalf Of Henry Addsrly 4 Co., Brit
ish subjects residing at Nassau, N. p. On May 0,
1853, the cause was heard upon the preparatory
proofs and papers, and thereupon the claimants
moved for leave to produce further proof and fled
In support Of the motion e1 payis adavits made BY
ssvaral Of the witnesses IN preparations, and the
afidavit Of George Wigg, taken at Nassau.
Subsequently, tho court ordered that the claimant
Of the ship be allowed TO produce further evidence
touching his interest therein, and the use he In
tended at the time Of the capture, to make Of the
vessel aer her arrival at Nassau the trade or bu-
siness he intended she should be engaged in. and
for what purpose she was going TO that porti and
that the claimant OF the cargo also have time TO
file further proof. as he might bo advised. This
order was made BY Judge Marvin, but no further
proof was produced. The affidavit Of Wigg, offered
as such, was taken before the order Of the court
allowing time for further proof was made Judge
Fraser succeeding Judge Marvin, the cause came
on for final hearing before him, when decree was
entered restoring the vessel and cargo claimants
upon payment Of the expenses Of the captors aAd
costs OF the proceedings, and adjudgng that there
was probable cause for the capture.
The United States appeal from 90 much Of the
decree as restored the property to the claimants,
and the claimants from so much Of II a. requires
them 10 pay the costs and expenses, and adjudges
probable cause.
The Governmsut contends that the failure TO
produce further proof by the claimants entitled
the United States, BY well-sstablishsd principle
and practices Of the prize courts To decree Of
conde emnation. Tho doctrine 10 stated BY Judge
Story. In his prize notes, thus: "If upon further
proof ordered, no proof is adduood, or the proof
bs defective, or the parties refuse to swear or
swear evasively, II s deemed oonolusiye evidence
Of hostile interests, Of such misconduct as au-
thorisss condemnation" Wheaton, appendix,
sos. See also Philiimore, Suit Law, 6ol.) In
La Nsrsyda, e whsaton, lIo.l thi, court said;
the party disobsys Its injunctions or neglscts to
comply with them, courts Of prize are In the habit
Of considering such negligence as eontumaoy, lead
ing 10 presumptions fatal 10 his claim The claim.
ants were not entitled to restitution without far.
thar proof.n
The evidence shows there was probable oanss, the
testimony Of Q fireman and another Of the crew
showing that there was distraction by burning OF
ships papers and other articles, BY order Of the
master at the time Of onpturei nor was there any
denial Of the truth Of the testimony Of these wit
nssses In the subsequent az parts Afhdayits fled
This fact alone asserted q necessity for further
proof.
Several witnesses also testified that the ten bales
Of merchandise constituting tho cargo contained
gray army blanksts. Another fact which, con.
sidersd In connection with absence Of all papers
giving any account Of the contents Of the cargo or
destination, justified Its seizure. The profss.ed
Ignorance Of the master as 10 all those facts which
q master is bound to know. In time Of war; a. TO
the character and ownership Of his cargo and the
intended employment Of his vessel Is snsther most
remarkable and suspicious circumstance showing
probable cause, and requiring, even In case clear
In other respects. the order for further proof
These facts make case OF such character that
the rule laid down In the case Of the Ofollon 70
VIII, 372) will not only exempt the oaptors from
payment Of damages, but will give them their costs
and expenses In proceeding to adjudication,
Tho claimants contend that the evidence Of tho
whole case shows that there was no probable cause
for seizure. The testimony Of portion Of the
crew that the bales constituting the cargo con-
tanned gray army blankets mere sailors gossip.
Besides, they do not claim TO have examined the
bales nor do they state any means Of knowing their
surmises 10 be correct. The most direct proof rs
TO the cargo was that Of the master. He says,
speaking Of the bales, that he saw when thoy were
inspected by the eAptors that the contents Of one
Of thom were monkey Jackets. But II there is any
question as TO the cargo, the Government has pos
session Of II, and did have possession at the time
Of the hearing and II could and should have given
positive proof Of It's character, especially II II pre-
tended then, or Is to be allowed 10 claim that any
portion Of II was army blankets, or oontraband oi
war at any time.
Tho Government was bound In justice and honor
to call its inspectors Of this cargo to prove what 1t
really was or to accept the statement Of the cap
tain, who saw Its agents inspect 1t, as to what 1t
was Both this court and great French writer
GASES which will not allow the Government, under
tho circumstances Of this ease-haVing withheld
tbs beat and decisive proof in its sole potesr-to
quo that the cargo was contraband Of war. 10
Evans Pothisr l49 Clifton vs. tho United States;
How. 2i7) The vessel and cargo should DO 70.
leased, and damages for their detention paid.
Henry stanbsry and Mr., Ashton for Government;
D. D. Eaton for claimants.
Rs,iSsn1ss Of the Judge Of the Supreme Court o.
the United Stats5.
Mr.. Chief Justice Chase, i street north, corne
Of Sixth street Hest.
Mr.. Justice Wayne, No. Franklin Place,
street.
Mr.. Justice Nelson, National Hotel.
Mr.. Justice Grier, No. Q north A street, Capitol
Hill
Mr.. Justice Clifford, National Hotel.
Mr.. Justice 5wAyns, WillArd's Hotel.
Nr. Justice Miller, National Hotel.
M Justice Davis, National Hotel.
NJ Justice Field, Willard's Hotel.
John W. Wallace, reporter, National Hotel.
DIV. Middleton, clerk, No. 6o8 New Jersey
pSyid 8, flooding, U. 8. Marshal, 4sl L street.
UNITED STATES CoURT OF CLAIMS
WRDEKsDAY, Jan. q, 1867.
"a