the year 1778, it had been held that lead is merchandize of promiscuous use, and if found to be shipped in large quantities for the ports of an enemy, may be at least stopped and sold in England; and the same is true even of those goods which are enumerated as not contraband in our treaties with neutral nations, if of promiscuous use, and destined for the ports of an enemy in great want of such merchandize.

1781. The case of the recapture of king's ships having been omitted in the statutes giving salvage; but salvage held to be due on such recapture to be regulated at the discretion of the court.

1783. A ship unjustly detained as prize is entitled to demurrage, and the offer of demurrage in writing, together with his papers, should be offered him in presence of a notary.

1779. An enemy's ship captured by a king's tender is a droit of admiralty, and not prize to the tender.

1780. The captain of a fleet is entitled, under the order of council of 1747, to be considered as a flag officer, and to a share in the distribution of prizes accordingly. Captain Kempenfelt.

Case of

Prest men are not subject to the articles of war, until actually rated on board some of his majesty's ships.

1782. The judge of the admiralty of Ireland, then a viceadmiralty court, held removeable at pleasure, without proof of malversation, so of Minorca 1780.

1786. The East India company, under their charter of the 31st of George II. entitled to such prizes only as are either within their limits, or taken by their ships during wars commenced by them or on their account.

1785. A sentence being silent as to the time and manner in which a prisoner was to suffer, the lords of the admiralty held to have a right to issue their warrant, and direct the time and manner, without any special warrant from the king for that purpose.

1785. An offence having been committed on the high seas, and the prosecutor poor, under age, and without friends, the lords of the admiralty were willing to pay the expense of the prosecution.

1791. Sailors from a frigate, put on shore at Messina to perform quarantine, stole goods from the Lazaretto. This is robbery within the meaning of the 30th article of war, and they triable by a court martial under the authority of the 35th.-N. B. This was made a question of much doubt on the words of these articles, and of the 36th.

A natural born subject of England residing at Rotterdam, though as to his allegiance he still continues a subject of England; yet in all matters relating to trade must be considered as a foreigner, and is not entitled to a Mediterranean pass.

The commissioners of the admiralty have a power of granting warrants to commit any person for piracy, on regular information upon oath; but cannot empower persons to search privateers, or other ships, for goods suspected to be piratically taken.

1776. An American vessel, with an English pass, and the master an Englishman, was freighted at Leghorn by Tuscan subjects to go to Alexandria. The captain changed his course, and put the Tuscan supercargo and others on shore on the coast of Africa, near Oran, and from thence to Alicant. The proprietors of the cargo applied to the British consul at Leghorn; in the mean time certain honest sailors, disapproving of the master's fraudulent conduct, which was piracy by the statute of William III. after he had sold part of the cargo, seized the ship while he was on shore, and brought her into Cadiz. The owners of the cargo conceiving she was become a droit of admiralty, applied through the consuls, Sir John Dick and Mr. Udney, in England, for compensation out of her. If she had even belonged to the captain, which did not appear, she was not

forfeited to the king, unless he was convicted. The owners of the cargo were advised to obtain his majesty's order to his majesty's consul to deliver up the ship to them, or to consent to any summary mode of proceeding, in the maritime court of that local jurisdiction where the vessel was.

1799. The ship of a neutral power, (the Ottomans) had been unjustly detained, and obliged to put into Malta. She was afterwards delivered up to the neutral, and by him accepted by the interference of the consul. The owners were advised, it being not a common case, to move the court especially on affidavits for a monition against the unjust captors, to shew cause why they should not be decreed to pay costs and damages.

The case of the capture of Jaggernaikporam, in the East Indies, in the year 1780, was a curious case of joint capture, by land and naval forces in the India company's service. The East India company were, in the first instance, entitled by their charter, to all the effects there taken; but there having been an appeal in this case, of the result of which the author has not been informed, he is not able to give the ultimate decision.

The famous cases of the Hookskarpel and Oester Eems, are in fact given by Mr. Robinson in his notes.

Cinque Ports. A large Dutch ship found at sea, with no person on board, nor papers to discover to whom she belonged, and carried into Dover, was held, in 1763, to be a droit of admiralty; but that the lords of the admiralty might, if they thought fit, direct proceedings against her in the port of the Cinque Ports. Enemy's ship stranded on Goodwin Sands, cargo landed at Deal, Cinque Ports have not jurisdiction, and though landed, a droit of admiralty.

In the case of the King of Prussia privateer, 1759, whose crew violently assaulted persons who came on board to seize certain sailors accused of piracy, the offence was deemed VOL. II.

67

cognizable by the admiralty sessions, though it happened in the port of Dover.

In 1751, a robbery having been committed on board the Savage sloop, in Dover harbour, it had been deemed to be within the jurisdiction of the Cinque Ports, exclusive of the admiralty of England.

Courts-Martial. The first captain to the commander-inchief, has a right to rank next to the junior rear-admiral, as member of a court martial.

Sir Hyde Parker's Case, 1791. Whether a lieutenant acting as master and commander, under 22 Geo. II. ch. 33. can sit as member of a courtmartial, greatly doubted, and advised that the opinion of the judges should be taken.

Lieut. Peyton, 1789.

No. 5.

ADMIRALTY CASES DECIDED IN IRELAND*.

Corish v. the Murphy.

PROMOVENT alleged, that having advanced 991. 4s. to impugnant, who was the owner of one half of the vessel in this cause, for the purchase of said moiety of said vessel, and for other purposes respecting the same, the said impugnant executed a bottomry bond to him upon the body or hull of said vessel, then lying in the port of Bristol; and to undertake a voyage from thence to Milford, and from Milford to Wexford, dated 11th February, 1795, upon the high seas and within the jurisdiction of the court, for repayment of said sum, and that it still remained due.

These cases are more particularly inserted, as shewing the native powers of the admiralty prohibitions having there been less frequent.

To this allegation or petition, which followed the words of the bond precisely, impugnant put in an exception, because it was not alleged that the money so advanced was for the repairs or use of the ship (the words other purposes being too vague and general), or that the repayment thereof was to depend upon any risk to be run by said vessel in her intended voyage, or that such repayment was to be made or depend on the event of the safe return thereof, so that it did no where appear by the allegation, whether said bond were in law a bottomry bond, so as to give the court jurisdiction.

I argued, that there were two kinds of bottomry bonds described by Sir W. Blackstone, one truly so-the other vulgarly so called, but only suable in a court of law.

That this was a bond merely depending upon the risk and not pledging the vessel, that no words were found in it, which could be construed to pledge the vessel. That to pledge the vessel, such express words as the following must be used: I, A. B. do bind the said ship, with the freight, tackle, and apparel of the same, as in the precedent, in Beawes, Vol. I. p. 139.-that even supposing the vessel pledged, and that it was properly a bottomry bond, yet it did not follow that the admiralty had jurisdiction-that every hypothecation of the ship does not give the admiralty jurisdiction, for if the master hypothecate under seal before the voyage begins, it was admitted in Menetone and Gibbons, 3 Term Reports, that the admiralty had not jurisdictionso if he hypothecate, but not for necessaries for the shipthat if a contract be made even upon the sea, if not for a marine cause, it cannot be sued in the court of admiralty. Hobart 12. Bridgeman's Case. Bacon, Court of Admiralty. C.

That it must be a marine contract, and for a maritime cause; it doth not appear here to be either instances of bot tomry bonds sued at law are frequent. Lev. 54. Siderfin, 27. 2 Ch. Cas. 130. Ab. Eq. Ca. 372.