The Lizzie Weston. After the capture, the flag officer of the United States squadron ordered an appraisement of the vessel, and appropriated her to the use of the United States government, and transmitted her cargo and officers, on the United States vessel Supply, to the port of New York, to the cognizance of the United States prize court. The prize was thus brought fully under the cognizance of this court. (Proceeds of Prizes of War, Abbott's Adm. R., 495.) Upon the proofs in the suit produced by the attorney for the United States, no one appearing to contest the same, it is ordered that a decree be entered condemning the appraised valuation of the vessel and the cargo seized on board of her, with costs, and directing a distribution of the proceeds thereof, according to law. THE SCHOONER LIZZIE WESTON AND CARGO. Vessel and cargo condemned as enemy property, and for a violation of the blockade. (Before BETTS, J., April, 1862.) BETTS, J.: This vessel sailed from Apalachicola, in January, 1862, under the rebel flag, laden with a cargo of cotton. She and her cargo were owned by residents of Florida, one of the Confederate States. She also had on board an English ensign, which the master was to hoist whenever directed to do so by the supercargo. She was documented by the Confederate States. Her destination was to Cuba, and back to a port in the Confederate States. She, however, has no specific limitation in her destination, but was to obey the directions of the supercargo as to her course. The owners of the vessel and cargo were on board of the vessel when she was captured. The seizure was made in the Gulf of Mexico, about one hundred and twenty miles off Apalachicola, by the United States gunboat Itasca. All on board of the schooner knew of the blockade of the port at the time she left it. The vessel on her capture was ordered to Philadelphia or New York, with her cargo, for adjudication; but while on that course, was compelled, by stress of weather and damage to the vessel, to put into Key West, where she arrived January 28, 1862. The schooner was there surveyed by authority of a United States officer, and reported to be in a bad condition to be navigated north. The cargo was trans-shipped to New York on board of the merchant vessel George W. Hull. The crew of the prize were despatched to the same port, as witnesses, by The Delight. the United States steamer Massachusetts, and were here examined in preparatorio. The vessel was left at Key West. A libel was filed in this court against the vessel and cargo March 18, 1862. Upon the proofs, the vessel and cargo are subject to condemnation and forfeiture as enemy property. No claim was interposed in defence to the libel, and the cause was regularly defaulted in court; and if any objection might be offered because of a supposed outstanding interest of neutrals in the vessel or cargo, the testimony is conclusive of a wilful evasion of the blockade of the port of Apalachicola by both vessel and cargo in their egress from it. A decree of confiscation must be entered accordingly. THE SCHOONER DELIGHT AND CARGO. Vessel and cargo condemned as enemy property, and for a violation of the blockade. (Before BETTS, J.. April, 1862.) BETTS, J.: This schooner, with a fishing seine and property on board of her, was captured, as prize, by the United States steamer New London, in Mississippi sound, on the 11th of December, 1861, fifty or sixty miles below New Orleans. The vessel was appraised by a naval board of survey, and appropriated to the use of the United States, on that valuation, by the United States flag officer in command in that vicinity, as necessary to the public service; and the property seized. was transmitted by the seizing officer to this port, in the United States steamer Massachusetts, to be proceeded against within this jurisdiction. The documentary title to the schooner shows that she was transferred from her American ownership, and enrolled and licensed to citizens of the Confederate States, in the port of New Orleans, in April, 1861. She came out of New Orleans having on board a pass from the confederate government, a rebel flag, and an old flag of the United States, which had been used on board of her before the rebellion. She left New Orleans the 2d of December, 1861. The vessel and the articles on board were the property of residents of New Orleans. All the crew on the schooner had known, for four or five months, that New Orleans was blockaded, and that United States vessels were lying before the place to maintain the blockade. The schooner was to return to New Orleans with the fish taken, for a market. The vessel and her equipments being indisputably enemy property, having also evaded the blockade of New Orleans, and being engaged The Empress. in procuring supplies for an enemy port, to be conveyed thence for the use of public enemies, the vessel and all the property seized on board are subject to forfeiture for those causes. Judgment entered accordingly. THE BARK EMPRESS AND CARGO. The requisites of a libel in prize, stated. The proper form of a libel in prize is a mere general allegation of prize. The practice in prize proceedings stated, as to the claim and test oath; the interest of the claimant in the property, and the inspection by the claimant of the ship's papers, and the proofs in preparatorio. The defence, in the claim, must be limited to a contestation of the allegations of the libel. The first hearing is limited to the inquiry, whether the captured property is prize of war or not. It is irregular to subjoin to the claim anything besides a test oath. Such irregularities will be corrected on motion, without formal exceptions. (Before BETTS, J., April, 1862.) BETTS, J. A libel was filed in this suit, January 22, 1862, alleging that the vessel and cargo were captured, as lawful prize, in the Gulf of Mexico, off the mouths of the Mississippi, by the United States sloop-of-war Vincennes, November 21, 1861, Captain Marcy, of the navy, commanding; that the prize has been brought into this port, and is now within the jurisdiction of the court; that, by reason of the premises, all such property has become liable to condemnation and forfeiture, as lawful prize to the libellants; and that, therefore, process of the court is prayed against the captured property, and a condemnation thereof, as prize, by the decree of the court. This is a regular and adequate method of pleading on the part of the libellants, and legally exacts all the answer which can be propounded to the charge that the property captured is lawful prize. (Mariatt's Formula, 159, 211; The Fortuna, 1 Dod., 81; 2 Wheat., App., 19.) The true form of libel ought to be a mere general allegation of prize, such as is used in undoubted cases of hostile property. ("Prize," by Judge Story, 10 Encyclopedia Americana, 364, section 15; The Adeline, 9 Cranch, 244, 284, 285; Halleck's International Law, chapter 31, sections 20, 22, 24.) By the general practice in prize proceedings, a party entitled to claim the property captured may file his claim, accompanied by an affidavit stating briefly the facts respecting it, and averring the verity of the claim. A valid interest must subsist in the claimant. A mere stranger will not be permitted to interpose a claim, to speculate upon the chances of an acquittal. Nor, as a general fact, are parties The Empress. permitted to examine the ship's papers, or the preparatory proofs, in order to shape their claims, for that might lead to great abuses. But the court, on special application and sufficient evidence, will allow so many of the papers to be inspected as may be necessary to ascertain the particulars which should be embraced in the claims intended to be filed. This, howeyer, would not import that the defence was, in form, to be shaped in reference to particulars. Its only effect would be to enable a claimant, before interposing in a suit, to become informed whether his interests would be embraced within the scope of the libel and his claim. The general doctrine with respect to the structure of the claim is readily gathered from the general principles which govern the line of defence allowed to claimants, and which are very clearly indicated by Judge Story in his treatise on prize proceedings. (10 Encyclopedia Americana, article "Prize," and especially article 15; see also Wheat., App., 500, 501; 2 Wheat., App., 20, 21; The Aina, 1 Spinks, 11; The Abo, Id., 47.) It is plain that the court, in adopting the prize rules regulating the practice of the court, (Rule 24, May term, 1861.) understood that the whole defence to be exhibited on the claim filed was simply a contestation of the allegations contained in the libel, (District Court Rule in Admiralty, 189,) and merely authorized the party to appear in court, and make opposition to a decree, on the allegations and proofs, on the first hearing. That hearing is limited to the inquiry, whether, upon the proofs drawn from the ship's company and her papers, with concomitant facts of which the court must take judicial cognizance, equally with the principles and rules of law, the captured property is prize of war or not. (The Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheat., 1.) I think that all other matters than the test oaths subjoined to the claims filed by Pearson, Hopkinson, and Jackson are surplusage and irregular on practice. They are inadmissible as evidence on the trial, and cannot be made the foundation for further proof by either party in the present stage of the suit; nor without a special order of the court to that end could they be so used in any future form of proceeding between the parties. The claim interposed by Moore and De Castro is unexceptionably brief in its form, but it is nugatory and irrelevant because it presents no issues for trial before the court, all the proofs in the case having been in court and on file before the claim was interposed, even were it competent for the parties to raise, on a first hearing in a prize court, a triable issue of facts to be supported by proof outside of those in pre The Wave. paratorio, or found on the vessel. It is also vitally defective and irregular, because the right of the parties to intervene is not supported by test oaths, nor are the allegations set forth in that pleading either demurrers or pleas in bar to the action. The libellants might have excepted to these modes of pleading, but they are also entitled to a remedy more summarily, by motion, because of the palpable inaptitude and irregularity of these modes of proceeding in a prize suit. The motion on the part of the libellants is accordingly granted. The parties are now entitled only to file claims verified by test oaths, establishing the interests they set up to the property captured. Order accordingly. THE SCHOONER WAVE AND CARGO. Vessel and cargo condemned as enemy property, and for a violation of the blockade. The rules of practice in admiralty are the basis of the practice in prize in our national courts. (Before BETTS, J., April, 1862.) BETTS, J.: This vessel and cargo were captured, as prize, off Boca Chica and the coast of Texas, on the 1st of February, 1862, by the United States ship-of-war Portsmouth. The vessel was regarded as unfit for a voyage to a northern port, and remains in possession of the captors. The cargo was transmitted to this port on board the prize steamer Labuan, and the vessel and cargo were here libelled, on the 27th of March, for condemnation as prize. Due service of process of attachment having been made thereon, and no person intervening for the same, default has been prayed for and ordered, and, on the proofs submitted to the court, a decree of condemnation is moved against the vessel and cargo. (Prize Rule 24; District Court Admiralty Rules 35, 184; Supreme Court Admiralty Rule 46.) The rules of practice in admiralty being the basis of the practice in prize in our national courts, and having been ordinarily, in the decisions of this court, referred to summarily as the fundamental authority in that respect, it is deemed appropriate to cite those rules textually: "As soon as may be convenient after the captured property shall have been brought within the jurisdiction of this court a libel may be filed, and a monition shall thereupon be issued, and such proceedings shall be had as are usual, in conformity to the practice of this court in cases of vessels, goods, wares, and merchandise seized and forfeited in virtue of any revenue law of the United States." (Prize Rule 24, May |