is a confidence placed in the discretion of a Collector, in cases of this kind, which may be abused, but which ought to protect him from loss when there is no reason to believe, as there is not in this case, that the detention proceeded from sinister motives, and not from a conscientious desire of discharging his duty. To subject a Collector, or any public officer, to such an imputation, when acting under a discretion thus reposed in him, the circumstances ought to be such as almost to preclude the possibility of his having acted but from some unworthy or dishonourable motive. The Court is much mistaken, if the facts in this case are such as to lead to this conclusion. The only question, then, is, whether the circumstances were such at the time of seizure, as to confer on the Collector, or his deputy, the right of acting under the influence of an opinion, that such illegal intention existed. But it is supposed, that the Ten Sisters had substantially terminated her voyage, or that being driven beyond Point Gammon into Hyannis Bay, she might lawfully terminate her voyage, and land her cargo at Barnstable. If a permit had been obtained to land her cargo at Barnstable, this argument would be entitled to much consideration; but when the master of a vessel, bound by her papers to one port, applies for a permit to land her cargo at another place, he cannot, in that way, deprive the Collector of considering the vessel as still in itinere, to her original port of destination, and if he suspects such application to be a mere pretence to conceal some illicit object, he has as good a right to make the seizure as if a permit had not been 1821. Otis V. Walter, 1821; Otis V. Walter. applied for. In the case of Otis v. Bacon, 7 Cranch, 596. a permit to land the cargo had been granted before any seizure took place, which was considered by the Court as evidence of the termination of the voyage, and that she could not, thereafter, be considered as actually or ostensibly bound to any other port. Nor can the exhibition of the manifest, or swearing to its contents, be considered as equivalent to a permit to land the goods. It might, on the contrary, furnish evidence, as it did here, of an ostensible destination from one port of the United States to another, where she had not yet arrived, and in which case the Collector had authority to act; nor was he bound to believe, merely from that circumstance, or from the then situation of the vessel, that such destination was abandoned. On a former trial of this cause, no clearance was produced, and the only testimony on this subject came out on the examination of the master, who declared, that the vessel was bound to Yarmouth or Barnstable. Upon the whole, this Court is of opinion, that the learned judge who tried the cause committed an error in telling the jury that they might fairly and justly determine the voyage was terminated at the time of seizure, if they believed the captain had given up his intention of going to Bass river, and had determined to land his cargo at Gage's wharf, which, though within the boundary of Yarmouth, is in fact in the harbour of Barnstable, and that he was waiting only for a proper opportunity to take the vessel into that wharf. Now, this was placing the termination of the voyage, not on the fact of its having actually ended, but on an intention of the master, of which it was impossible the Collector could know any thing with certainty, who was to judge of his right and duty to make the seizure only from the papers of the vessel, and the situation in which she was found, which is admitted to have been short of her destined port. But if a secret intention of the master be permitted to be set up as a ground of decision, and this, too, contrary to the written evidence in the cause, on which alone a public officer can act with safety, he would always be exposed to risks which might deter him from acting altogether. The jury, therefore, should have been left to decide from the other evidence in the cause, independent of any secret, or even declared, intention in the mind of the master, whether the ostensible voyage was terminated or not; and it seems difficult to conceive how their decision could have been otherwise than favourable to Otis. In this part of the charge, therefore, the Court is of opinion, there is error. Another part of the Court's instruction to the jury is also complained of; it is, that in which the Chief Justice remarks, that the Collector had no authority, without the consent of the master, or person having the care of the cargo, to unlade it from the vessel and store it. It is not known what influence this opinion had on the jury; but in the unqualified terms in which the Collector's right to unlade the cargo is denied, this Court does not concur. We have already decided, that with the consent of the master, or agent of the owner, the cargo may be landed, but it was not intended to say, that in no other case 1821. Otis V. Walter. 1821. Otis v. Walter. could such landing and storing be justifiable. If it appear that the Collector, during the detention of the vessel, shall, bona fide, think it will tend to the security and preservation of the property to unlade it, and will do it at his own expense, it is not perceived why he may not do so, but at the peril of such an act being regarded, per se, as a conversion of the property. At any rate, this consequence ought not to follow, unless it shall appear that the property was lost or injured in consequence of such landing. That not appearing to have been the case here, it is not necessary to say what effect such a circumstance could have had in this suit. All that it is intended to say here, is, that a landing for the purposes, and under the circumstances which appear on this record, is not of necessity, or in itself, a conversion. Judgment reversed, and a venire facias de novo awarded." a Vide ante, vol. II. p. 18. + (LOCAL LAW.) GOSZLER V. THE CORPORATION OF GEORGETOWN. The power given to the Corporation of Georgetown, by the act of Maryland, of November, 1797, c. 56. to graduate the streets of that City, is a continuing power, and the Corporation may from time to time alter the graduation so made. The ordinance of May, 1799, by which the Corporation of Georgetown first exercised the power of graduating the streets, is not in the nature of a compact, and may be altered by the Corporation. THIS cause was argued by Mr. Key for the appellant, and by Mr. Jones for the respondent. Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia, on the following case: In the year 1797, the Legislature of Maryland, among certain additional powers given to the Corporation of Georgetown, enacted, that they "shall have full power and authority to make such by-laws and ordinances for the graduation and levelling of the streets, lanes and alleys within the jurisdiction of the same town, as they may judge necessary for the benefit thereof."-Act of Nov. 1797, c. 56. s. vi. p. 35. In pursuance of this authority, the Corporation 1821. Goszler The Corpo- March 15th. March 16th. |