persons concerned will take due notice.

Witness our hands this twentieth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five.

(Sgd.) ARTHUR GORDON.

J. CARTER.

R. PARKER.

The Court, composed of Sir James Carter, C. J., Parker and Ritchie, JJ., met at the city of St. John, N. B., on May 30th, 1865. The charge to the grand jury was delivered by the Chief Justice, and Ritchie, J. (afterwards Sir William J. Ritchie, C. J. of the Supreme Court of Canada) charged the petit jury.

William Jack, Q. C., Advocate General, appeared for the Crown.

John H. Gray, Q. C., and C. W. Weldon for the prisoner.

The following is the report of the trial taken from the St. John Evening Globe of the dates given below:

May 31. The Grand Jury today found a true bill for assault and piracy on the high seas against John C. Braine, David Collins, et al. Linus Seely, the only one of the above named parties in custody, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. He selected Messrs. Gray and Weldon for his counsel.

June 1. The trial of Seely is progressing at the Admiralty Court to-day.

1864

THE

June 2. The counsel addressed the Court to-day for and against Seely, after which Judge Ritchie CHESAPEAKE delivered an able, lucid, impressive, and impartial charge.

June 3. The jury at a late hour last night, and after an absence of ten hours from the Court, returned a verdict of "not guilty," and the prisoner was discharged, the Judge giving him a few words of caution as to his future course. Having heard the principal evidence and the charge of the judge, we think that the verdict of the jury could not well have been On different from what it was. all the points but one the charge was against the prisoner; but that one-and it was the most material one— was in his favor. That point was as to the existence of the animus furandi on the part of Seely. The commission under which the principals, Braine and Parr, pretended to act, a commission said to be issued by Jefferson Davis to Thomas Power of the Retribution, and purporting to be transferred by him to Parker, was of no avail, because it was not shown who Power was; that he ever existed; that the Retribution had ever sailed; or that Power had ever made the transfer, or that he had the power to make it. But it was shown that the principals in this affair, at the meetings which they held here, and at which a commission

1864

THE

of some kind was read purport ing to be issued by Jefferson CHESAPEAKE Davis, pretended to be acting for the Confederacy; that they promised their dupes the pro

tection of that power or whatever it was; that they styled each other Captains, Lieutenants, etc., and generally did such other things as might lead the prisoner and his associates to believe that these men were acting for and were authorized by those States. This then would seem to establish that the prisoner considered himself to be acting as a belligerent; that he did not assist in seizing the vessel solely for his own gain, but as a prize to the Confederate States. In making up their minds, the jury had several collateral circumstances connected with the affair-both before it took place and afterwards-to consider. One of these was as to the sale or disposal of the cargo, or part of it, at Shelburne, N. S., and at Lahave. This would seem to establish that the parties so disposed of the cargo for their own benefit. It was between these circumstances and others of lesser note that the jury had to make their decision. Now, whatever might have been that decision, had Braine or Parr been on their trial- of whose original intention from the outset there can be no doubt whatever as far as Seely is concerned, the jury,

in giving him the benefit of the doubt that must have existed upon some of their minds, did what was just and right. For although a part of the cargo was unquestionably and indisputably sold or exchanged at the places named, it was done by the principals, and although piracy, as far as these principals were concerned, it was an act over which the subordinates had no control; they got nothing, and expected nothing from it: and these circumstances, with the mode of his enlistment, undoubtedly led to Seely's acquittal. If Braine or Parr were put upon their trial for the same offence, we presume they would have to rely upon a regular commission in justification of their Without a commission their disposal of the property was piracy; for the judge charged that, although the subjects of a power at war may seize the property, public or private, of the enemy, the property so seized is taken for the public good, and is to be delivered up to the public authorities, and must not be held for the private benefit of the captors.

acts.

The case of The Saladin, referred to in the argument of counsel, ante, p. 248, was tried at Halifax, N. S., July 23, 1844. It was a case of mutiny and murder on a voyage from Valparaiso to London with a very valuable cargo of guano, copper

and silver. After the master and some of the crew had been murdered, the instigator of the mutiny―a Captain Fieldingand his son, a lad of fifteen years of age, were thrown overboard, and the vessel was wrecked on the coast of Nova Scotia, not far from Halifax. Fourteen persons were on board when the vessel left Valparaiso; only six survived when the vessel was found on the Nova Scotia coast; the others had been thrown overboard. The court of trial was composed of the Admiral on the station, Sir Charles Adam, Haliburton, C. J., and Halibur

1864

THE

ton, Bliss and Hill, JJ. There were four counts in the indictment: (1) piracy; (2) taking CHESAPEAKE the property on board of the vessel; (3) mutiny, and piratically taking possession of the ship and money; (4) piratical acts. The prisoners were all found guilty, and four of them were hanged. The other two had been forced to assist in the crime to save their own lives. For a detailed statement of this extraordinary case, including the confession of the prisoners, see The Gleaner newspaper of Miramichi, N. B., of dates June 19th, July 27th, and August 3rd, 1844.

1391.

2 Will. & Mary, s. 2, c. 2, 1690.

7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 65, 1826-7.

18 Geo. 2, c. 20, s. 14, 1744-5. 2 & 3 Will. 4, c.

40, 1831-2. 28 & 29 Vict., c.

124, 1865. 31 & 32 Vict., c. 78, 1868. 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 40, 1831-2.

5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76,s.108,1835

55 Geo. 3, 128 1814-5.

miral and his Deputy.

Powers of Admiralty to be executed by Commissioners.

To same effect.

Commissioners of Admiralty. Incorporation and quorum of. -Powers of to act as Justices of the Peace, administer oaths, etc. -Suits by and against

Transfer to Commissioners of Admiralty of Civil Department of Navy.

Municipal Corporation
Act, 1835.
Chartered

Admiralty

Jurisdiction of Boroughs abolished, Cinque Ports excepted. Purchase of land for telegraph stations by Admiralty.

Repealed in part by 42 & 43 Vict., c. 59. Repealed in part by 22 Geo. 2, c. 33, s. 1.

Repealed in part

by Stat. Law Rev. Act, '73.

Repealed in part

by 28 & 29 Vie. c. 112, s. 1.

Repealed in part by 28 & 29Vic. c. 112, s. 1.