Further proof, inconsistent with that already in the case,
refused on the part of the claimant.
The merchandise in this case was libeled in the District Court
of Rhode Island as belonging to subjects of Great Britain. The
capture was stated in the libel to have been made on or about 23
August, 1812. No libel was filed against the vessel.
In June term, 1813, a claim was interposed on behalf of the
United States, on the ground that these goods were imported in
violation of the nonintercourse laws.
In May, 1813, Matthias Bruen interposed a claim to certain
merchandise on board of the
Euphrates, alleging that he is
the sole legal owner thereof.
The papers connected with this shipment were as follow:
1. An invoice dated Mansfield, 30 June, 1812, purporting the
goods therein described to be shipped at Liverpool, under
insurance, consigned to Mr. Henry Watkinson, New York, or in case
of his absence to Mr. John French Ellis of that place, for sale on
account of the manufacturers, Siddons & Johnston, who were
British subjects.
2. A bill of lading by which it appeared that the goods were
shipped at Liverpool on 7 July, 1812, on board of the
Euphrates, to be delivered to Henry Watkinson, he paying
freight, &c.
3. A letter from Siddons & Johnston dated Mansfield, 30
June, 1812, in which they say
"We have this day consigned to you for sale on our account
sixteen trunks, . . . (which are the goods claimed). We hope we
shall shortly hear of sales being made by you, to advantage; we
hope they will at least net us what they are invoiced at, covering
all expenses.
Page 12 U. S. 386
We shall leave this shipment to your discretion to make the best
and most advantageous returns you can."
There being no proof whatever on the part of the claimant, and
he not appearing to have any interest whatever by any of the papers
on board, the goods were condemned both in the district and circuit
courts, and the claimants adjudged to pay costs to the
libellants.
From this decree there was an appeal on the part of Mr. Bruen to
this Court.
Page 12 U. S. 387
LIVINGSTON, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Court does not understand the counsel for the appellant as
contending that there was any error in the sentence of the circuit
court or that any other than sentence of condemnation could have
been pronounced there. It was indeed a very clear case on the
proceedings before that court. But it is supposed that Mr. Bruen is
entitled to an order for further proof, and that the facts which he
will be able to make out if an opportunity be afforded him will
entitled him to a restitution of the property.
Without rejecting the application on account of its being made
at so late a period, the Court has looked into the proof which it
is proposed to bring forward, and, on comparing it with the proof
already in the cause, we are of opinion that it is totally
incompetent to make out a title in the appellant. There is not the
least reason to believe that these goods were shipped in
consequence of any previous orders given to Mr. Watkinson by
merchants in this country and transmitted by him to Messrs. Siddons
& Johnston. On the contrary, whatever orders may have been sent
to those gentlemen by Mr. Watkinson, it is most manifest that they
did not, in this case, act upon them, for the invoice and letter
accompanying the shipment announce in terms not to be misunderstood
that these goods were sent to the United States for the exclusive
account and at the sole risk of the British manufacturers.
It has not escaped the notice of the Court that not one of the
gentlemen who are alleged to have given orders for these goods on
Messrs. Siddons & Johnston, through Mr. Watkinson, and who all
reside in the United States, appears as a claimant for any part of
them. Instead of this, we find them, or several of them, assigning
their interest in this adventure, whatever it may be, to the
claimant; but for what value does not appear, and every instrument
takes care to express that the property is to be recovered at the
risk and expense of Mr. Bruen. Thus is a total stranger to the
shipment, and a mere volunteer who may not have paid
Page 12 U. S. 388
a single cent for his title, made a party claimant -- a mode of
proceeding novel at least, and well calculated to awaken suspicions
not at all favorable to his pretensions. Whether a title to goods
obtained in this way would under any circumstances be sustained by
a court of prize we will not say, but it is in our opinion
sufficient reason, of itself, to refuse the party any opportunity
to make further proof. Mr. Bruen not only does not pretend that he
owned any part of these goods at or previous to the time of
capture, but merely that he was the legal owner at the time of
filing his claim, and upon the affidavits now laid before the Court
as the ground of an order for further proof, it appears that this
legal title was acquired in the way already mentioned -- that is,
by a number of persons assigning to him a chose in action, which
they must have considered of no value, or at any rate not worth
pursuing. Such conduct can entitle the party to no favor or
indulgence whatever. Upon the whole, the Court is as well satisfied
with the decree of the circuit court, as it is with the total
insufficiency of the evidence in reserve to produce any alteration
in it.
The application, therefore, for further proof is rejected,
and the sentence of the circuit court affirmed with costs.