Court Opinion

ID: 9300084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:06:34.858414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:38.949787
License: Public Domain

WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice.
The deposition of the captain is positive, that only Cape Frangois was blockaded; and there is reason to believe, from the whole evidence, that she was warned off from St. Domingo, in consequence of a suspicion that she had gunpowder on board. The protest of the captain was read, merely to impeach his deposition, and the jury believed, that only the cape was blockaded. The vessel was compelled by force to go to Jamaica, and there to end her voyage, which was a complete destruction of it. The plaintiff ■of course was entitled to claim for a total loss.
2. No evidence was given, of what were the proceeds of the homeward cargo, nor was it made a point on the trial. It is as likely that there was a loss, as a profit. If, however, the return cargo was purchased with the proceeds of the outward cargo, the underwriters should have credit for the proceeds of it, if there was any profit. As to the proceeds of the cargo, as it was sold at Jamaica, it was allowed. If more was made, the defendants should be credited for them. But this is no reason for setting aside the verdict, though it may be a reason for this court relieving in another way.
3. This claim is totally without foundation. The voj’age was to have been out and home; but being broken up, it terminated at Jamaica; and the defendants might as well insist upon all the freights, which this vessel might have ■earned, if she had gone from Jamaica on a trading voyage to Europe, or the East Indies, until her return; as to the freight from Jamaica to the United States.
Rule discharged.