Annotate this Case
73 U.S. 582 (1867)
U.S. Supreme Court
The Wren, 73 U.S. 6 Wall. 582 582 (1867)
73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 582
1. The liability to confiscation, which attaches to a vessel that has contracted guilt by breach of blockade, does not attach to her longer than till the end of her return voyage.
2. A vessel condemned below as enemy's property restored by this Court, the proofs being of a hearsay and loose character and such as did not rise to the dignity of evidence within the law of that subject. But costs were withheld.
The steamship Wren, a merchant vessel, left the port of Havana on the 12th of June, 1865, for Liverpool via Halifax, Nova Scotia, with a crew of about thirty-five persons, who, on the morning of the next day, mutinied, confined the officers in their quarters, carried the vessel into the port of Key West, and delivered her as prize to the acting admiral commanding at that station. The seizure was in pursuance of secret arrangements with the United States consul at Havana, before the vessel left that port. A libel was filed against the vessel by the United States District Attorney, before the judge of the Southern District of Florida, as prize of war. The master, one Stiles, put in a claim in behalf of John Laird, a British subject, as owner.
This Stiles had been an officer in the Navy of the United States. The record also disclosed this answer of his to the standing interrogatory as to the papers of the vessel:
"All the letters and papers of which he has any knowledge of having been on board on the present voyage were taken by the asserted captors with the exception of one letter to himself from the agent of the vessel, Mr. Helms, at Havana, which was destroyed, and an order in favor of this deponent from Mr. Helms
for the payment of 40, payable on delivery of the ship at Liverpool."
After hearing the proofs, including those hereafter mentioned, the court condemned the vessel on the ground that she was the property of the enemies of the United States. Laird appealed.
In this Court it was insisted, that the vessel was liable to be condemned:
1. For breach of blockade on the voyage next preceding that on which she was captured.
2. As being enemies' property.
1. As respected the breach of blockade. It appeared that the vessel had been engaged in running the blockade of the port of Galveston, Texas, from the port of Havana, and that a short time before she entered on the present voyage, she had successfully entered Galveston, discharged her cargo and taken on one of cotton and returned in safety to Havana.
2. As it respected the ownership. On the side of the claimant, it appeared from the registry of the vessel that the "Wren," her registered name, was a British ship, built at Birkenhead, in Chester County, England, by Messrs. Laird Brothers, in 1864; that she belonged to John Laird, the younger, of Birkenhead, shipbuilder, as owner; that William Raisbeck was, at the date of the registry, master of the ship; that Liverpool was her port of registry; and that she was of 267 tons registry tonnage. The registry bore date the 24th December, 1864.
John Duggan, one of the crew examined in preparatorio, and who resided in Liverpool, testified that he shipped in the vessel at Liverpool in December, 1864, on the voyage to Havana, and continued one of her crew while she was engaged in running the blockade, and down till her seizure by the crew, the 13th June, 1865. He stated that she was British built, called The Wren, and never had any other name, and that he knew nothing as it respected any bill of sale. Other witnesses examined on this subject of a sale agreed with this witness. Shipments addressed to him as master, dated Havana, 15 March, 1865, showed that Raisbeck,
the registered master of the vessel, came out with her to Havana. Stiles was appointed master afterwards.
On the other hand, the material evidence to prove that the vessel at the time of seizure was enemies' property was as follows: the answers of the purser of the ship, McGahan, to the fourteenth interrogatory were thus:
"He believes that Frazer, Trenholm & Co., of Liverpool, are the owners of the vessel, and were so at the time she was seized; has no personal knowledge as to who are the owners; he has heard Major Helms, at Havana, and Mr. Lafitte also, at Havana, speak of Frazer, Trenholm & Co., as owners."
So Duggan, one of the crew, in reply to the fifth interrogatory:
"He does not know to whom the vessel belonged, but has heard Captain Moore one of her former masters, with whom he sailed in said vessel in former voyages, say that she was owned by the Confederate government."
Another item of proof relied on was that Major Helms, a Confederate agent at Havana (and who had been connected in some way with the voyages of the vessel while running the blockade), appointed Stiles to the command of the vessel for the voyage from Havana to Liverpool. McGahan, the purser already mentioned, testified that the master was appointed to command, as he understood, by Major Helms, at Havana; he did not know who delivered possession of the vessel; he believed that the master took possession by the authority of Major Helms. Duggan, one of the crew, stated that the name of the master was Stiles; that he was appointed to the command of the vessel by Major Helms at Havana.
McGahan was again examined, among others, on an order for further proofs, in which examination he says that he did not know who appointed Stiles to the command of the Wren at the time of leaving Havana; he believed that Major Helms appointed him; he arrived at the conclusion from hearing Major Helms speak of the resignation of the former captain.
It appeared, however, from the testimony of Stiles himself
and of Long, his first officer, that he was appointed to the command by a Mr. Ramsey, who shipped the crew at Havana for the voyage to Liverpool, and thus seemed to have had some agency of the vessel.
The first officer stated also that when he needed anything for the use of the vessel, he was generally sent by Captain Stiles to Ramsey to obtain it.
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.