Case: THE SCHOONER JULIANA v. THE UNITED STATES; and THE SHIP ALLIGATOR v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Schooner Juliana v. United States
Decision Date: 1810-02
Docket Number: 
Citation: 6 Cranch 327
Volume: 10
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THE SCHOONER JULIANA v. THE UNITED STATES; and THE SHIP ALLIGATOR v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 327–329

Head Matter:
THE SCHOONER JULIANA v. THE UNITED STATES; and THE SHIP ALLIGATOR v. THE UNITED STATES.
It was no offence against the embargo law of take goods out of one vessel and put them into another in the port of Baltimore, unless it be with an intent to export them.
THESE were appeals from the sentence of fthe circuit court for the district of Mar) land, affirming the sentence of the district court, which condemned the schooner Juliana, and the ship Alligator and cargo, for a supposed violation of thp 3d section of the act of congress of the 9th of January, 1808, entitled “ An act supplementary to the act, entitled an act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in- the ports and harbours of the United States,” by putting goods from the Juliana on board the .Alligator.
The libel, in the case of the Juliana, stated, that on the first of January, 1808, she, being a Swedish vessel, cleared from Baltimore for’ Port au Prince, having on board 100 barrels of herrings, which were on board when her master was notified of the embargo; that she proceeded on her voyage to her port of destination, but before she left Patapsco river, there were laden on board of her a complete cargo of merchandise, foreign and domestic, with which she proceeded, in prosecution of her .said voyage, until the 1st of January, 1808, when she was arrested by' the officer of the customhouse of the port of Baltimore, and brought back; after which, and while she was in that port,, via. the 11th of January, 1808, sundry goods, described in the libel,, were taken and removed from the Juliana and put on board the Alligator, then lying in the port of g ,¡ ¡moreii íí contrary to the provisions of the statutes oi the said United Nates, in such rase made and prpvided, and with intent to violate the provisions of the said statutes, for which cause .she wasseiz. d by the collector of that port as lorfeited. The libel in the case of the Alligator vyas a copy of that against the Juliana.
The words of that part of the 3d section of the act of January 9, 1808, vol. 9. p. 11. upon which these-libels were founded, are as follows:'
“ And ,be it further enacted, that if any ship or vessel shall, during the continuance of the act to - which- this act is a supplement, depart from anv. port of the United States without a clearance or permit; or if any ship or Vessel shall, contrary to the provisions of this act, or of the act to' which this act is a supplement, proceed to a foreign port'or place, or trade with or put on board of any other ship or vessel, any goods, wares or ' merchandise,' of foreign .or domestic growth or manufacture, such ships or v¡ ssels, goods, wares and merchandise, shall be wholly forfeited.”
Harper and Martin, for the appellants, contended
That the sentence ought to be reversed,
1. Because it appears from the libel that if any goods were put on board the Alligator, it was after the Juliana had been seized and brought back, and while the Alligator was at the wharf a perfect hulk, totally unfit to proceed on a vovage, and entirely passive as to any improper use made of her.
■2. The libel cloes not charge that the goods put on board the Alligator were the same which'were oh board the Juliana when she was seized and brought back.'
3. It does not charge that the owner of the Alligator had any knowledge of, or concern in, the business.
4. The evidence is insufficient to prove any cause f condemnation.
5. It is not averred that the goods were put on board the Alligator with.intent to export them; which is the offence contemplated by the act.
6. The libel does not allege that the seizure was made within the district of the seizing officer; nor upon the water. It .does not appear to be a case of admiralty jurisdiction.

Opinion:
The Attorney-General, on the next day, abandoned the causes as untenable.
Sentence reversed, and restitution, ordered.