A question of proprietary interest on further proof. Restitution
decreed.
Captors' costs and expenses ordered to be paid by the claimant,
it being his fault that defective documents were put on board.
On further proof, the affidavit of the claimant is indispensably
necessary.
This cause was continued for further proof at February term,
1816,
see 1 Wheat. 112. Owing to various accidents, the
further proof was not received until the last term, and the case
was now argued upon the further proof then produced and filed. It
consisted of invoices of the cargo; bills of lading; accounts of
sale; accounts of disbursements; the original correspondence
between the
Page 18 U. S. 128
claimant and Mr. Jones, his agent in London; and the original
procuration from the claimant to Mr. Jones, recited in the power
given from the latter to Diamond, the supercargo, one of the
original papers found on board; to which was added the affidavit of
Mr. Jademerowsky, the claimant, verifying the correspondence and
explaining the circumstances of doubt and suspicion which appeared
upon the original evidence.
Page 18 U. S. 130
MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
When this case was first brought to the view of this Court, it
was accompanied by some others in which Russian claimants presented
themselves under circumstances which satisfied this Court that
their claims were false and fraudulent. On comparing those cases
with this, there was such a striking similitude in their machinery
that it was impossible not to suspect that they were all fashioned
upon the same model and adapted to the same end. With
The St.
Nicholas and
The Fortuna full in view, this Court
could not adjudge the case of this vessel to be a case of
restitution. Still, however, there was a possibility that those may
have been the forged copies and
Page 18 U. S. 131
this the genuine prototype. This Court therefore, trusting that
a Russian character of high standing could not have pledged himself
for the fairness of the transaction, but without better evidence
than was then presented our view, gave the most liberal indulgence
for procuring evidence to support the claim. We now express our
satisfaction in having done so, inasmuch as it has enabled an
honest man both to save his property and vindicate his reputation.
And we cannot omit this opportunity to remark how much it becomes
the interest, as well as principles of the fair neutral to
discountenance the conduct of him who indulges himself in
fraudulent practices. The claimant in this case had nearly fallen a
sacrifice to the bad faith of some of his countrymen, a great loss
from it he must unavoidably incur, for this is one of those cases
in which, by the course of the admiralty, we shall be obliged to
throw the costs and expenses upon the claimant although we decree
restitution. It is altogether upon the evidence of Jones and the
test affidavit of the claimant introducing and verifying their
original correspondence, that restitution is now decreed.
Unsupported and unexplained by the evidence introduced as further
proof, the condemnation was unavoidable. It is therefore the
claimant's misfortune, not that of the captors, that the agent
Jones had furnished the vessel with the defective documents which
accompanied her.
Decree reversed.
DECREE. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the
record of the Circuit Court for the
Page 18 U. S. 132
District of Georgia and on the further proof exhibited in this
cause, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is
DECREED and ORDERED that the decree of the Circuit Court for the
District of Georgia in this case condemning the cargo of the ship
Venus be and the same is hereby reversed and annulled. And
this Court proceeding to pass such decree as the said circuit court
should have passed, it is further DECREED and ORDERED that the said
cargo of the ship
Venus be restored to the claimant, and
it is further decreed that the said claimant pay to the libellants
the costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of this
suit.
