High Court Of Admiralty, ...
The Times, 1824-11-24T00:00:00

-- - -Vt l;4e%juugUlvlm sxu ltUtU cause 0uay. Havir g so recently stated at lengti trle fsctg upon which the an. plication of the majority of the owners of the Apfilo has been .ade to the Court, it is only neceessary to repeat, that one of the co-owners having objected to her prpceeding on a voyage upon vsich his co. partners in the concern were desirous of despateiiing her, obtained the usual process of this CouTt, in virtue of which the ship was ar- rested, and not relecsed until Gail had been given to the clilseetting owner in the sum of 3,O001, being the amount of his interestin her. That dissent was foulided upon his objectlons to the in8ofldicen6y of certain repairs wvhich were done io her; and hiis conviction that she was unable to bear the additions (such aa a poop, extra cabins,,and the enlargemient of her scuttles) that had been made in and about her hull, with a view to tlic accommodstiotn of passengers. The Apollo sately performed her voyage out to the East Indies; but on her rcturn was wrecked in ale Day, and totally lost. The co-partniers, who had paid the araount of the steurity they had given into Court, have now applied to the Judge, praying hiim to refer it to the Registrar and Merciants to aseereain what amount of dainages they have austained by reasonmof the misronduea of the ap- plicant, MIr. Tatbutt, in wilfullv obstructing the objects of the voyage; and, by reason oF spreading reports prejudicial to the cba' racter of the vessel, iniducing 18 out of 23 assencer~, wh-o bad en- gaged to sail in her to India, to betakce thems eves to other abips. This and other consequential losscs they themselves stated at not less than 5,0001.1 Lord STOWELL, in giving sentence, observed, that there were two questions to beconsidered.the one of jursdiction, and the other of facts. After stating what the precise jrilsi etion of the Admiralty Court was in these questions of security, -the learned Judge pro. ceeded to show, that even under the large and extended terms of his commisrioas, (wIutch termis, howeier, were to be estimated rather; bg the ordinar. application of the powers given by the coniniission, t an by consiucting the possible force which iabstractedly they nsigbt possess), this Courtppsseised no jarisdiction in a mere matter ofpc- cLaniary accounts, such as. were made the ground of this very. novel application. No precedent haLd been shown for the,proposi. tion submitted by the counse1fcrthe o-ownets of the 5.8tlhs , and doubtless the absenca of any such authorities wis owing to the cir- cumstance of the Court of Admiraltv's baving always confined itself within the properlimit.of irwarrrantable 3slsdiction-BQ it had been argued thheothercots..thecourtbuf eormnionlaw..took cognl- zance of matters arising out oF the recognizances entered into beforc. them, and were accustomued to go fully into Pbe iierits of 3uch ques- tion8; and, by,analogy; it had been olsempted to show- that thiI Court ought to entertarnuthe whole questlon to be rmisedon the trtns- actions that ensued upon the bail given to ilr.Tarbutt for his three- eighths interest in thte ship (3;O00T : th#Ie. imianiy6Weould nat hold ;'and for thieasonA-tbejrilothiralt was as to the takirg and enforcxngsecur ty, liniited -mid express. ot xo that of cousris of commnon law, evb in cafes of bail -aud re- cognizanee, for they htadg7/ a lvutryliceani.ery.gpncra1jjrixdicd6G Uponthemater o tie pceen aphi~tio, thecrefore, the learned_ Judge was Ceiarly of oinIom2 that. this Court had not lejirlvdictron As 8ta the uestiola of facts, the two co.towners had glven the third security tbr his interet, in ease a particulsr event should happen. aua the obi dat, Of teOurf enut now be, i& dir~rtit amunttobe paid out of ithe Registry to the indi~ldual,' tio the bail was 'ven. .Notilingcoula nfect hi f ht~i,-ut 8s being- rOdt aebe tme act i uconsequence of'which the accident tbrogh hichtheshiP had perished had been occasioned. -But ithere was no evdence of this kind. 3Maiicious mL-represenartions had, ndeed beenimpted to 1l1r; Tarbutt;,but the Court eculd not act ponevienc ofso very conflicting a niturc as that wvas, whichi went to impugh the chartcter of this gentleman. it mn'st be much lmormexplict testlimony-mntcl nmote consistemt and united-Wto af- feqt thejudgnneht of the Coitrt upon 1Alr. Tbattarbt' airauif His Lordship then expressed his displeasure at the great length to whicb in this,arin other cases, acts on petition hadbeen allowewtorun; and considering that Mr. Tarbut; had himself introduced a large extr. neous history into his case, the Court would direct Alr, Registrar to deduct from the costs it intended to allow, all expensss arising from :mny itrelevant ftte.s eo introduced on his behalf In other causes, the Court was fully determined to pursue a similar rule-to preven4 if posible, the recurrence of this ver objectionable mode of plead. ing. Under al.thie circurustances of the case, It directed that ASt. T arbutt shoald receive the full amount of the bail (3,C001.3, witb nua coats genersfly, subject onlv tO such deduction. IITGE[ COURT OF ADMIRAI1TY, TtSDAY. Nov. 23. TU1E APOLLO.