Court Opinion

ID: 8640051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:51:43.808618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:04.281957
License: Public Domain

LIVINGSTON, Circuit Justice.
In defence of the libel filed against this vessel for proceeding from the United States to the island of Antigua, contrary to the act laying an embargo, and the first act in addition thereto, the claimant alleges, that while on a voyage from Alexandria to Boston, she was driven by storms, tempests, stress of weather, and necessity, out of her course, and forced to proceed to that island for her own preservation and that of the cargo, and of the lives of the persons on board. Both the fact and the legal consequences deduced from it by the appellant, are denied by the counsel for the United States. In looking at the testimony, it cannot be denied that there is every reason to believe that the real destination of the William Gray was Boston. Two witnesses swear to this fact positively, and she had actually arrived at Martha’s Vineyard on that voyage. Why it was not completed is very minutely accounted for. An attempt was made to reach Boston, but the inclemency of the season, the frozen and mutilated condition of several of the hands, and the wrecked state of the brig, are assigned as *1302reasons for not being able to effect this purpose. In this state of things it appears to bare been unanimously thought necessary for the preservation of life, and on the advice of the pilot, to bear away for the West Indies, it being deemed impossible to return to any port on the continent of America. What the pilot advised to be done is a matter of fact, and may be proved as such by any witness. Such advice or conduct on his part cannot be classed, as has been done, with hearsay testimony. To this body of evidence the court is desired to oppose its own opinion as to the practicability of arriving at some one or other port within the United States. It is certain that a story may be so very improbable that although attested to by more than one credible witness, no one would be bound to believe it. But this is not of that description, although it does appear to the court somewhat extraordinary that a vessel so near the continent, and in so high a latitude, should not be able to make some part of it; yet, for aught it can know to the contrary, vessels quite as near, if not nearer, may have been blown off in the winter season, especially if in a shattered order, to the West Indies. It would, therefore, be unpardonable in either a jury or a court, merely because a fact appears somewhat improbable, to disregard the evidence establishing it, and to decide in conformity with its own opinion, unassisted by that of professional men, in the face of all the proofs in the cause.
In the judgment of this court, then, the alleged necessity is sufficiently made out. Whether it takes the case out of the statute is next to be considered. Were this res integra the very able argument on behalf of the United States would be entitled to the most respectful consideration. It is perhaps to be lamented that judges ever permitted themselves to make any exceptions to an act, which the legislature itself had not thought proper to incorporate within the body of it. The latitude which has been assumed in this way has very much added to the uncertainty of the written law of the land, and produced much litigation, which a firm adherence to its letter would have prevented. But it is too late for speculations of this kind. Their only use can be to make courts careful. and they cannot be too much so, never to depart, under the idea of preventing a particular hardship, from the plain and obvious meaning of the legislature. This restriction, which every judge should impose on himself, is not transcended when in the interpretation of penal statutes, any principle is applied, which is found in every code of laws divine or human, and has from time immemorial been ingrafted into the common law of the country from which our jurisprudence is borrowed. Where such rules or principles exist and have invariably and on all occasions governed courts in the administration of criminal justice, they become as much a part of the law, and are as obligatory on a court as the statute which it may be called on to expound. Of this kind is the one of which the appellants now claim the benefit; that the concurrence of the will in what is done, where it has a choice, is the only thing that renders a human action culpable, or in other words, that to make a complete offence, there must be both a will and an act. This axiom, as it may be termed, is applied as well to offences created by statute as to those which are such at common law. The variety of cases in which this absence of will excuses those who would otherwise be offenders, have been mentioned in the course of the argument, and among them we find that on which this defence proceeds, namely, an act which proceeds from compulsion and inevitable necessity. Whether the legislature might not by apt words punish an act taking place under such circumstances is foreign from the present inquiry: but where this - is not done in terms, they are supposed to know that by the rules of the common law, it is always considered as excepted, and therefore do not make the exception themselves. The cases which have been produced by the appellant are as strong and conclusive as perhaps were ever submitted to a court in support of any proposition of law. If the necessity which leaves no alternative but the violation of law to preserve life, be allowed as an excuse for committing what would otherwise be high treason, parricide, murder, or any other of the higher crimes, why should it not render venial an offence which is only malum pro-hibitum, and the commission of which is attended with no personal injury to another. The court, therefore, cannot but yield to the weight of so many authorities, especially too when every decision accords with reason, common sense, and the feelings of mankind, which are universal and indelible. But is it so very clear that the law itself does not make the exception? The court is inclined to think, that on a fair comparison of the different acts with each other, this will be found to be done. The legislature, by some of the provisions of the enforcing law, as it is called, certainly appear to have been of the same opinion. The court, therefore, thinks that the necessity which is proved to have existed, excused the party from all guilt, and of course from the forfeiture which is sought; and that none having accrued, it is not among those cases which are referred for mitigation to the secretary of the treasury,
The sentence of the district court must ae-cordingly be reversed.