The Memphis and The Sunbeam.

THE STEAMER MEMPHIS AND CARGO.

Decree of the district court, condemning vessel and cargo for a violation of the blockade, affirmed. (Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.)

NELSON, J.: The steamer Memphis was captured on the 31st of July, 1862, by the United States sloop-of-war Magnolia, in latitude 33° 50′ north, and longitude 78° 19' west, about eighty miles to the eastward of Charleston, South Carolina. The Memphis is an iron screw steamer, of 791 tons burden, by her register, Donald Cruikshank, master. She is a British vessel, and the cargo belongs to British subjects. Her voyage was, in fact, from Liverpool, England, to Nassau, and thence to Charleston, South Carolina. She left Liverpool on the 10th of May, and Nassau on the 19th of June, 1862, passing the United States blockading squadron, and entering Charleston, on the 23d of the same month. The cargo landed in Charleston consisted of eighty tons of gunpowder, a large quantity of rifles and muskets and general merchandise. She took on board, at Charleston, for her return voyage, some 1,500 bales of cotton and 500 casks of resin, which constituted her cargo at the time of her capture. Mr. Andrea, a part owner of the cargo which was put on board at Liverpool, says that it consisted of about 4,000 stands of arms and 900 barrels of powder; and that she had, when captured, 1,500 bales of cotton and 400 casks of resin.

The proofs are full to show that the master and Andrea, the owner of the cargo on board, knew of the blockade of Charleston at the time the vessel started for that place from Nassau, and intended to run it; and also when she left Charleston on her voyage home. They are too full and decisive of the criminal intent to call for any extended examination of them.

Decree below affirmed.

THE STEAMER SUNBEAM AND CARGO.

Decree of the district court, condemning vessel and cargo for an attempt to violate the blockade, affirmed.

False and simulated papers as to the destination of the vessel.

The pretence that the vessel sought the blockaded port in distress overruled.

Part of the cargo was an innocent shipment, and neither the owner of it nor any of his agents were implicated in the fault of the vessel. But, in case of a blockade, the general rule is, that

The Sunbeam.

the deviation of the vessel into the blockaded port is presumed to be in the service of the cargo, and that the owner is bound by it, except in the absence of notice of the blockade at the time the vessel sailed. In this case there was no such want of notice.

(Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.)

NELSON, J.: This steamer was captured in the act of entering the port of Wilmington, North Carolina, a blockaded port, on the morning of the 28th of September, 1862, by the United States steamer State of Georgia. She belongs to H. Lafone, a merchant of Liverpool, and a British subject, who is also owner of all the cargo except eighteen bales of merchandise, worsted stuffs, belonging to J. Greenwood, of Bradford, England, their manufacturer. The cargo belonging to Lafone consists of powder, lead, arms, boots, shoes, &c., and was put on board at Liverpool in August, 1862. The bales of worsted stuffs were shipped at the same time and place through agents of the manufacturer .and The ostensible destination of the vessel was to Matamoras, Mexico. She started on her voyage from Liverpool on the 6th of August, reached Halifax on the 5th of September, left that place for Matamoras on the 14th of the month, and on the 28th was captured, as already stated, while entering the port of Wilmington.

owner.

The pretext set up for the deviation and the entrance into that port is, the disabled condition of the vessel from a storm encountered on the voyage on the 19th of September, eight days before the capture. Without going over the evidence, I deem it sufficient to say that this storm and its effects upon the vessel are greatly exaggerated, and do not furnish a satisfactory excuse for her position at the time of the capture. There are also many facts and circumstances in the case tending strongly to the conclusion that the voyage to Matamoras was simulated, and that the original destination was to one of the ports of the Confederate States.

It has been strongly argued that the owner of the worsted stuffs was ignorant and innocent of the fault of the master, and that the master was not the agent of that part of the cargo, which was shipped in the usual way, with a separate and distinct bill of lading, invoice, &c., and that it should not be held responsible for the deviation of the ship into a blockaded port.

I am inclined to think, upon a full consideration of the evidence bearing upon this part of the case, that, in point of fact, this was an innocent shipment, and that neither the owner nor any of his agents were implicated in the fault of the vessel. But the general rule seems

The Mersey.

to be, that, in case of a blockade, the deviation of the vessel into the blockaded port is presumed to be in the service of the cargo, and that the owner is bound by it, except in the absence of notice of the blockade at the time the vessel sailed. In this case the vessel sailed from Liverpool on the 6th of August, 1862, some months over a year after the establishment of the blockade of the ports of the State of North Carolina. The fact was well known at Liverpool, and, indeed, in all England, at the time the ship sailed.

Decree below affirmed.

THE SCHOONER MERSEY AND CARGO.

Decree of the district court condemning vessel and cargo reversed, they not being enemy property, and there having been no violation of, or attempt to violate, the blockade.

(Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.)

NELSON, J.: This vessel and cargo were captured on the 26th of April, 1862, in the Gulf Stream, about one hundred miles from land, and two days out from Nassau, N. P., on a voyage from the latter place to Baltimore and back. Her cargo, which was put on board at Nassau, consisted of salt, coffee, soap, merchandise, &c. The vessel is owned by Roberts, a merchant and resident of Nassau, and a British subject. The cargo is owned by Sawyer & Menendez, of the same place, one of them a British subject, and the other a Spanish. According to the evidence the vessel was in her proper course, pursuing her voyage to Baltimore, and without any intent to run the blockade of any of the confederate ports. She seems to have been convicted on suspicion, from hearsay evidence and report that she had run the blockade of Charleston on her previous voyage, and that she was still the property of a citizen and resident of some of the southern States. I am not satisfied that these facts, or any of them, have been established by competent proof. The cargo, it is admitted, belongs to British and Spanish subjects.

Much stress is laid upon a mutilation of the log-book, which is fully explained by the further evidence of the mate and steward.

Decree below reversed.

The Lynchburg.-The Empress.

THE SCHOONER LYNCHBURG AND CARGO.

Decree of the district court, so far as it condemned the vessel and all of the cargo except 504 bags of coffee, affirmed. As to the 504 bags of coffee, further argument ordered as to the proprietary interest therein; and either party allowed to produce further proof upon it.

(Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.)

NELSON, J.: There is no dispute, in this case, that the vessel, and also a portion of the cargo, belong to citizens of Virginia and residents of Richmond. The cargo consisted of coffee, of which 2,045 bags are claimed by Brown Brothers & Co., of New York, citizens of a loyal State. Of these, 1,541 bags were restored to them, and the residue were condemned. I desire to hear a further argument upon the question as to the proprietary interest in the residue of the 2,045 bags of coffee, beyond the 1,541 claimed by Brown Brothers & Co., and either party may produce further proof upon it.

The decree below is affirmed as to the vessel, and all of the cargo except the residue of the 2,045 bags of coffee, after the restoration of the 1,541 bags.

THE BARK EMPRESS AND CARGO.

Decree of the district court, condemning vessel and cargo for an attempt to violate the blockade, reversed.

The purpose of the master in approaching the blockaded port was to inquire whether it was act ually blockaded.

Under the circumstances of this case, the master was justified in making such inquiry.

The master thought he would be entitled to a warning from a blockading vessel before a forfeiture would be enforced, and acted on such a construction of the President's proclamation of blockade, and on directions to that effect contained in the charter-party for the voyage, and in the instructions to him from the charterers, although he had good reason to believe that the port was in a state of actual blockade.

Although the terms of the proclamation afford no justification for the act of the master, they are entitled to consideration on the question of the intent with which the master was sailing for the blockaded port.

Although the general rule may be that, even in the case of a blockade de facto, such as the present was, the inquiry must not be made at the blockaded port, if it be reasonably practicable to ascertain the fact by inquiry at a neutral port; yet there are exceptions to that rule, and this case is one of them.

(Before NELSON, J., July 17, 1863.)

NELSON, J.: This vessel and cargo were captured on the morning of the 28th of November, 1861, by the sloop-of-war Vincennes, at the mouth of the Mississippi river, off the Southeast Pass, some three miles from the Balize. The vessel was under a charter-party, entered into by the master, at Rio Janeiro, on the 5th of September, 1861, to ship

The Empress.

a cargo of coffee to "New Orleans or Mobile, as may be ordered by the charterers, and if the vessel, on arrival, be warned off by a blockading squadron, to proceed either to New York, Baltimore, or Philadelphia, which second place is likewise to be named by the charterers previous to the departure of the vessel from Rio de Janeiro. If warned off New Orleans or Mobile, the master to deliver at the port of discharge the order from the officer warning him off," &c.

On the 14th of September, 1861, the master was instructed by the charterers to proceed to New Orleans with his cargo, (6,185 bags of coffee,) and should the port be open upon his arrival, the bill of lading indorsed would advise him to whom to deliver the cargo, but should the port be blockaded, he would be warned off, and would then proceed direct to New York.

The vessel belonged to a British subject residing in Hull, England, and had sailed from that port in May, 1861, with a cargo of coal and cast-iron buildings for Rio Janeiro. On discharging her cargo, she was put up for freight by the master, which led to the charter above referred to. The cargo on board belongs to the charterers, William Moore & Co., British and Brazilian subjects.

The only question in the case is, whether or not the vessel and cargo are subject to condemnation for attempting to break the blockade of the port of New Orleans. Upon a perusal of the testimony in preparatorio and the documentary proofs, I am satisfied that there was no such intent on the part of the master or of the owners of the cargo; but that, on the contrary, their purpose was to ascertain, at the mouth of the Mississippi river, by personal inquiry, whether or not the port of New Orleans was actually blockaded. This was, I think, the bona fide intention of the parties. There was no disguise of the purpose, as it was avowed in the charter party, and in the written instructions from the owners of the cargo, and repeatedly by the master himself; and the only question is, whether the master was justified, under the circumstances disclosed in the case, in making such inquiry.

It is quite apparent that these parties adopted that construction of the proclamation of the President announcing an intent to set on foot a blockade of the southern ports, which is indicated by its terms-that a vessel sailing for a port in a state of blockade would be entitled to a warning from one of the blockading vessels before a forfeiture would be enforced; and that, acting upon such construction, and the consequent directions found in the charter party, and the instructions from the charterers, the master persevered in the purpose of making the in