282 bales of cotton, &c.

and consequent to the before-mentioned proceedings, Robert L. Ward and Walter S. Gove, composing the firm of Ward & Gove, warehousemen, transacting business in the city of New York, presented to this court, for adjustment and allowance by this court, with notice to, and consent of, the district attorney, their bill of charges for their services and expenditures in behalf of the libellants, in respect to the aforesaid property, which services had been theretofore rendered under the official employment of the officers of the court, during the pendency of the aforesaid actions therein, and between the 17th of April, 1862, and the 26th of July, 1862, and in pursuance of the authority of the second section of the act of Congress in relation to the administration of the law of prize, approved March 25, 1862, (12 U. S. Stat. at Large, 374,) praying the court to allow to them their costs and charges, and such relief and remedy for the recovery thereof as may be authorized by law. Copies of said application to the court, and of the evidence supporting their claim, were served, with notice of the motion, prior to its being made, upon the marshal and district attorney. No objection was interposed by either of those officers to the application. On the same day the court ordered a reference of the application, with the bill of charges and disbursements aforesaid, to be made to the prize commissioners, to examine the said bill of charges and proofs, and report to the court the sum justly and reasonably allowable thereupon. On the 4th of November instant, the said commissioners reported that "the account is just and true, and that the sum of $7,619, being the whole amount thereof, is justly and reasonably due to said Ward & Gove thereupon." I accordingly, upon the aforesaid report and opinion, adjust and allow the said claim for services and expenses at the sum of $7,619 to the said Ward & Gove. The final decree in this cause by the circuit court being for the restitution of the prize property seized, and there being no money subject to the order of this court in these causes, the costs aforesaid became a charge upon and payable out of the fund for defraying the expenses of suits in which the United States is a party or interested, according to the provisions of the 14th section of the act to regulate prize proceedings and for other purposes, approved June 30, 1864, (13 U. S. Stat. at Large, 311.) Order accordingly.

The Annie.

THE STEAMER ANNIE AND CARGO.

Vessel and cargo condemned for a violation of the blockade.

(Before BETTS, J., November 22, 1864.)

BETTS, J.: The steamer Annie was sent into this port for adjudi cation, as prize of war, on the 9th of November instant, in charge of a prize-master. She was captured at sea, October 31, 1864, off the coast of North Carolina, by the United States vessels-of-war Wilderness and Niphon, and was libelled, as lawful prize, within this district, and attached on due process of law issued upon the libel filed against her, and made returnable before the court on the 22d day of November, 1864. On that day the warrant of attachment was returned by the marshal, in open court, as served upon the vessel and cargo, and, on motion of the United States attorney, proclamation was duly made in court of her attachment and seizure thereon, and, no one appearing thereupon, on like motion, a judgment, by default of all parties interested in the vessel and cargo, was declared and rendered, and a final decree was pronounced against the same, in due course of procedure, according to the rules and practice of the court. Thereupon, the preparatory proofs taken in the cause, and other documentary evidence found upon the prize vessel, or pertinent to the suit, were produced before the court by the United States attorney, and submitted to its consideration, with a prayer for judgment of condemnation and forfeiture against the said vessel and cargo as lawful prize of war.

The testimony so produced and submitted to the court was direct and satisfactory to the effect following: Albert Connop, examined in preparatorio before the prize commissioners, in this port, on the 14th day of November instant, testified that he was master in command of the ship, at the time of her seizure, on the 31st of October last; that she was captured off Cape Fear river, North Carolina, for having run the blockade of a confederate port; that she attempted to escape the capturing vessels, the Wilderness and the Niphon, which fired at her twenty five or thirty guns; that she was English built; that the voyage on which she was captured commenced at Halifax, and was to have terminated at Nassau; that the outward cargo consisted chiefly of provisions, and was discharged at Wilmington, North Carolina; that she had on board, when captured, 500 bales of cotton, 30 tons of tobacco, and 8 barrels of turpentine, all having been taken on

The Annie.

board at Wilmington, and the cotton and tobacco having been shipped by a brother of the owner of the vessel to him at Nassau; that the previous voyage was from Bermuda to Wilmington, and thence to Halifax; that on that voyage she carried into Wilmington a general cargo, the particulars of which he could not state, and brought out cotton and tobacco, which she delivered at Halifax; that she was owned by Alexander Collie, of London; that he does not know who were the owners of the cotton and tobacco; that he himself owned the turpentine; that bills of lading covering all of the cargo, except $50,000 in specie, were thrown overboard during the chase of the prize; that he knew that Wilmington was under blockade when he entered and left that port; that the vessel had previously violated the blockade of Wilmington while under the command of the witness and her previous masters; that the specie was thrown overboard during the chase of the vessel, and that the vessel was built for Collie.

The first mate, Trehane Fickell, and the chief engineer, William Helme, of the prize vessel, were also examined in preparatorio, on the same day with the master, Connop. They substantially concur with him in the allegations that the vessel went into Wilmington, and came out of that port, in violation of the blockade, on the voyage in question, with full knowledge of its existence and enforcement, and with intent to evade it. It would be a useless surplusage of details to recapitulate the proofs at large.

The only paper evidence of the ownership of the prize ship, secured and brought into court from the capture, is an English certificate of registry, issued from the custom house at London, January 14, 1864, to Francis Muir. The testimony in preparatorio proves that the vessel was under British equipment as to officers, men, and flag, and was sailed in the interest of British subjects.

The result is unequivocal, upon the proofs, that the vessel was studiously and openly employed, at the time of her capture, in violating the blockade imposed by the United States government on enemy ports in the rebel States, and was captured in the act of evading the blockade of the port of Wilmington, North Carolina.

It is accordingly adjudged that the vessel and cargo be sentenced to condemnation and forfeiture for such offence, and that a decree to that effect be entered.

The Lady Sterling.

THE STEAMER LADY STIRLING AND CARGO.

Vessel and cargo condemned for an attempt to violate the blockade.

(Before BETTS, J., November, 1864.)

BETTS, J.: The above-named steamer was captured as prize, October 28, 1864, by the United States vessels of-war-Calypso and Eolus, on the Atlantic ocean, off Wilmington, North Carolina, and was reported to this district for adjudication. Such proceedings were thereupon taken in court, upon the libel filed against her, and the processes and acts authorized by the laws of prize and the rules and usages of prize practice, that judgment final, on default of all appearance or defence in respect to the vessel, tackle, and cargo, was rendered against the same, as prize of war.

A large mass of desultory papers were taken from the prize vessel, mostly relating to other voyages and ships, and brought before the court through the prize commissioner's office, together with the depositions collected by those officers under the interrogatories in preparatorio in this suit. But no document relating to the ownership, voyage, or employment of the vessel, at the time of her arrest, was produced in court, the proof being clear that all papers of that kind were thrown overboard and destroyed by the master during the chase of the prize. The master, the first mate, and the chief engineer of the ship on the voyage in the prosecution of which she was captured, were carefully examined upon the standing interrogatories, and I think they have entitled themselves to the credit of having, in their testimony, given an unreserved and uncolored representation of the facts attendant upon the adventure she was endeavoring to carry out when she was arrested. The master, Donald Cruikshank, was appointed at London, in August, 1864, master of the steamer Lady Stirling, then being built and fitted out by Thomas Sterling Begbie, residing there, on a contemplated voyage from London to Halifax, destined to Nassau, N. P., by the way of Wilmington, North Carolina. The owner of the Lady Stirling, her master and crew, all well knew, at the time, of the exist ence of the war, and of the efficient blockade of the port of Wilmington, North Carolina, and that the present voyage was specially destined to evade that blockade. The master proves these facts by his testimony, and the records of this court show that the same master had been, two years previously to the commission of the offence now charged, in command of another large English merchant vessel, purposely fitted out

The Sybil.

and employed with his knowledge and agency, to evade the blockade of the rebel ports, and which was captured and condemued for actually violating the blockade of the port of Charleston, South Carolina.

This case does not require further comment, in justification of a judgment condemning the vessel and cargo as lawful prize.

Decree accordingly.

THE SCHOONER SYBIL AND CARGO.

Vessel and cargo acquitted, with costs, there having been no probable cause for their seizure.

(Before BETTS, J., December, 1864.)

BETTS, J.: The above vessel and cargo were captured at sea, in the Gulf Stream, in longitude about 76° 52' west, latitude °33 18' north, by the United States vessel-of-war Iosco, as prize of war, November 20, 1864, and sent to this port, in charge of a prize-master, for adjudication. A libel was here filed in this suit, December 1, and an attachment issued thereon, returnable on the 20th of the same month, and such proceedings were taken in the cause that, on the 7th of December instant, William Stewart, of Liverpool, appeared therein by his agent and attorney, Oliver K. King, and filed his claim and answer to the aforesaid libel, averring, in effect, the capture of the said vessel and her cargo to have been without lawful authority and wrongful, and attaching his test oath to that claim, demanding the discharge of the vessel from seizure in this action, with damages to the claimant because of her arrest. On the same day, Alfred T. Conklin, of the city of New York, appeared and filed his separate answer and claim in the cause, alleging that he is the consignee and owner of 20 bales of cotton, part of the cargo of said vessel seized as prize. His test oath is annexed to the claim and answer, declaring that he is solely interested in the aforesaid cotton, saving the interest which may appertain to Foulke & Wilkes, who are the shippers of it, and are residents of Matamoras, Mexico, and that the vessel was bound from Matamoras to New York. On the same day, Godfrey Knoop, of the city of New York, consignee and agent for the owners of 284 bales of cotton, part of the cargo of said schooner seized in this suit, filed a claim and answer therefor, attaching his test oath thereto, alleging that the said bales of cotton were (in designated parts) the property of Messrs. De Jersey & Co., residents of Manchester, in England, and of Messrs. Foulke & Wilkes, residents of Matamoras, in Mexico; and the answer and claim proceeds to deny that the said cotton was lawfully captured