The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-11-25
MISCELLANEOUS LAW REPORTS.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT cuua1-,a ADMIRALTY.
Important Decision About the Seizure Of Yes
sells in New Jersey Waters.
Before Judge Nelson. t ftls.t

Important Decision About the Seizure Of ves-
sells in New Jersey Waters.
Before Judge Nelson. 1n.t
John Whitman Us. Joseph Thompson Ii q
motion for q new trial. suit in trespass was
brought by Whitman against Thompson for seixing
and carrying away by force and arms. in the lower
bay OF New York, certain vessel called the Ann L.
Whitman, her tackle, furniture, &C.. and dsposing
OF the same
The defendant plead the general issue, and also
special plea setting up that the plaintiff, nhAbi
tant and resdent of New York. was at the time OF
the seizure engaged with his vessel within tho
waters Of inc state OF New Jersey and within the
bounds OF the county OF Monmouth OF said State in
dredging for CLANS contrary an act OF the Legisla-
ture OF New Jersey, and that the defendant, being
Sheriff OF the county OF Monmouth aforesaid, seized
and carried away the vessel In pursuancy OF the
authority OF said act, and Immediately gave iRfOr-
nation to two Justices OF the Peace OF the county OF
Monmouth, before whom such proceedings were
had; that the said vessel was condemned and sold BY
direction OF the said justices and according to the
provision OF the act Aforesaid. On the trial the
cord OF condemnation the justices given In evil
dence, with much other testimony relating to the
seizure, the locality within which 1t was made and
The business In which the plaintiff and his counsel
were engaged at the time.
The jury found q special verdict-nrst, that the
seizure was within The waters OF New Jei sey;
second, that 1t was not made within the limits OF the
county Of Monmouth; third, that the plaintiff was
not engaged at the time In dredging for CLANS, and
assessed the damages OF the plaintn at So, 500.
The Court, after reviewing the evidence, states:-
IL Is also urged that inasmuch as the jury found
that the seizure made within the waters OF New
Jersey this finding should be regarded sufficient 70
give the justices Jurisdiction. We agree this might
have been sufficient II the act OF the Legislature OF
New Jersey had so provided. But the Jurisdiction
conferred upon the justices is confined, In express
terms, to seizures within the boundaries Of Mon
mouth county, which the jury have negatived.
II is further argued that the judge erred In Instruct
ing the jury that the record Of the justices only
priIna face evidence OF the finding, inasmuch a. Il
conclusive Oh the TACT the dredging C,aOn
within the waters OF New Jersey. We DO not deem
10 material TO inquire whether not this record
this collateral suit conclusive OF all the facts
therein contained, except those relating to the ques
ton OF jurisdiction for the reason that the ursdic
tonal question we have been considering goes to the
root OF this action and overrdes every other ques
ton involved. Even II the judge erred In the In
stance specified which we do not admit II could not
have altered the result The absence OF jurisdiction
renders every part OF the proceedings before the
justices coram non-judicie and void.
judgment for the plaintiff