Glasgow Courier. — 1845-12-09 (Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland)

PIRACY AND MURDER CASE ON BOARD THE WASP.  EXCHEQUER CHAMBER—WEDNESDAY. The majority of the Judges of the Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, assembled this morning in Serjeants' Inn, for the purpose of hearing the arguments of civilians against the conviction m the case of piracy and murder which was tried before Mr. Baron Platt, at the last Exeter assizes. Sir Joseph Dodson, Dr. Melvin, and Mr. Godson, Q.C., appeared for the Crown; and Dr. Addams, Dr. Harding, Serjesnt Manning, and Mr. Denison, for the prisoners. Dr. ADDAMS opened the argument, and contended, in the first instance, that the prisoners had been guilty of no act of piracy. Piracy was particularly defined in the various treaties between this country and the Brazilian Government, as well as in several aces of Parliament confirming those treaties; but he was sure those pisonars had done nothing which could justify theft being charged with the offence of piracy, within the meaning of those acts and treaties, and therefore he was prepared to urge that the Felicidade was wrongfully seized. But supposing the prisoners had been guilty of the offence of piracy, the seizure of the Felicidade, be maintained, had not been made in accordance with the provisions of the act of Parliament, conforming to the instructions issued to the Royal Navy, under the treaties which existed between this country and the Rrazils. Those acts and instructions required that the capture should be made by an officer in the Royal Navy of no less rank than a lieutenant; but here the capture had been made by the Echo, which was only nutter the command of a midshipman. The Echo, however, it was said, must be considered in the light of • tender or jolly-boat of the Wasp, which was under the command of a lieutenant of the Royal Navy—namely, Lieutenant Stupart: Now, upon the former oi melon, a case was cited to their Lordships which wholly disposed of this point; but he could assure their Lordships that there were many subsequent cases upon the point. There was, for Instance, the case of the Jepharina, in Haslel Reports, which clearly established that a tender or jolly-boat, commanded by a lieutenant, could not make • captures or participate in the advantages of • capture of this sort. Well, then he said these parties were justified, by the law of nations, in taking the steps they did to regain their ship and obtain their liberty. He denied that they had concocted • plot to murder all the English on board the Felicidade, but they did concert a plan to take all necessary steps to recover their vessel, and they had a perfect right to do so. In carrying out that plan a conflict ensued, and this alleged murder took place. But this act did not render them accountable to the English laws, because the Felicidade having been wrongfully seized, was still • Brazilian vessel, sailing under the Brazilian flag. and they committed the act without any menet prepoism, but sifilPlY to carry out a plan for recovering that which had been taken front them in violation of the law of nations. That point, then, being disposed of, the next question fur him to comkkr was, whether these parties had otaninitted any offence against the peace of her Majesty. Now, it could not be an offence against the peace of the British Sovereign, because it was not committed on board • British vessel, or within the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty; and he should dismiss this part of his argument without farther comment or remark. In conclusion, he submitted to their Lordship.' that these parties had been srongfully captured and detained, and the steps they took to mover their liberty was justified by the law of nations, and by no prohibited by the treaty Peewees this oonntry and the Dr. H•antre followed on the sanie side. He mastended that the prisoners had been guilty of no Ukase whet the law of nations, not even supposing they had actually twee sapped laths slave-trade, because *lave-trading was not piracy, nor was it Mltrary to the law of nations. Ile neat submitted to their that they had been guilty of no offence under or by reasonlAtit treaties elistiog betweee Upland and the Snail*, and think* they were illegally and ereeritelb eePtate4 teat, carrarad direct violation or the Imam themesiam Be tollowmaria aent by preMathqr that they were sot within the jcdoo ot the Brithhempire; sad rearteded be eintlbst admitting they ME eseraillei as Whim whist tla