Le Louis

[210] " le Louis "-(Forest) December 15, 1817.-The sentence of a Vice- fri. Admiralty Court, condemning a French ship for being employed in the slave trade, and forcibly resisting the search of the King's cruisers, reversed -No British Act of Parliament, or commission founded on it, if inconsistent with the law of nations can affect the rights or interests of foreigners [Followed, The "San Juan Nepomuceno," 1824, 1 Hagg 267. Adopted, R. v. Keyn, 1876, 2 Ex. D 210 ] This was the case of a French vessel which sailed from Martinique on the 30th of January 1816, destined on a voyage to the coast of Africa and back, and was captured ten or twelve leagues to the southward of Cape Mesurada, by the *' Queen Charlotte " cutter, on the llth of March in the same year, and carried to Sierra Leone. She was proceeded against in the Vice-Admiralty Court of that colony, and the information pleaded, -1st, That the seizors were duly and legally commissioned to make captures and seizures. 2d, That the seizure was within the jurisdiction of the Court 3d, That the vessel belonged to French subjects 01 others, and was fitted out, manned, and navigated for the purpose of carrying on the African slave trade, after that trade had been abolished by the internal laws of France, and by the treaty between Great Britain and France 4th, That the vessel had bargained for twelve slaves at Mesurada, and was prevented by the capture alone from taking them on board 5th, That the brig being engaged in the slave trade, contrary to the laws of France, and the law of nations, was liable to condemnation, and could derive no protection from the French or any other flag 6th, That the crew of the brig resisted the '' Queen Charlotte," and piratically killed eight of her crew, and wounded twelve others 7th, That the vessel being engaged in this illegal traffic, resisted the King's duly commissioned cruisers, and did not [211] allow of search until overpowered by numbers And 8th, That by reason of the circumstances stated, the vessel was out of the protection of any law, and liable to condemnation. The ship was condemned to His Majesty in the Vice-Admiralty Court at Sierra Leone, and from this decision an appeal was made to this Court For the respondent, the King's Advocate and Adams contended, that the stipulation in the additional article of the treaty between Great Britain and France, of the 20th of November 1815 (App. N), carried with it a legal presumption that the slave trade had been abolished by the laws of France prior to that period; and that the official declaration of M de Talleyrand, dated on the 30th of July (App. I) in the same vear, carried back the presumption still further They admitted that an intention only on the part of the French Government to abolish the traffic would not be sufficient, and that there must be some leqal act for that purpose ; but they argued that the treaty itself was evidence that such an act had really taken place That if not a proof conclusive in law, it was at least sufficient to throw the onus probandi most strongly on the adverse party, and imposed upon them the necessity of shewing that, by the laws of France, the slave-trade was allowed at the time of capture : the legal presumption was, that the treaty had been duly performed, and it was for the opposite party to rebut the presumption. They then cited the case of The " Amedie " (1 Dods 84 n.), in which it is laid down generally by the superior Court that the slave trade is pnma facie illegal, and that [212] the burden of proof is on the claimants to shew that the laws of their own country permit such a traffic. The evidence, however, they contended, contained explicit proof that the treaty had actually been carried into effect , and in support of this, they again referred to the official declaration of the French minister (App. I), stating that directions had been given for the abolition of the trade This, they said, was a declaration not of an intention to abolish, but of the abolition itself,-of an act done and past. This was still further confirmed by a subsequent act, viz the ordonnance of the French King in January 1817 (App. R), which inflicted particular penalties on persons engaging in the slave trade. It was no just inference that because additional 2D0DS 213. " LE LOUIS" 1465 penalties were imposed upon the continuance of the trade, there was therefore no previous abolition of it; for prohibitions of particular practices were often enacted in the first instance, and afterwards additional penalties imposed, as in many of our own Acts of Parliament There was, therefore, the fullest and most complete evidence of the abolition , and that this was the state of the law, was confirmed by the conduct of the parties themselves The master admitted that he had heard that the slave trade had been prohibited by the laws of France ; there was no direct authority from the governor of the colony, authorising or recognising the trade ; and the ship's papers manifested a studious concealment that she was at all engaged in it The conduct of the patties was in itself an acknowledgment of their [213] sense of the illegality of the trade , of their consciousness that they were offending against the laws of their own country. Adverting to the character of the vessel, they admitted that she was French : having a register as such, and bearing the French flag But she had likewise British colours on board, and had recently been the property of British subjects , and therefore there was, on the most limited grounds, a special justification to persons under British authority to examine into her national character It was not, from a mere idle curiosity that this examination was resorted to ; for it was expressly certified that the vessel had been British, and there was nothing but the mere assumption of flag to distinguish her as having acquired another character. With respect to the employment of the vessel, they contended that there was positive prooi, in the evidence of two of the witnesses, that the vessel was actually about to take twelve slaves on board at Mesurada , that the act certainly had not been completed, neither was the consummation of it necessary to rendei the property liable to confiscation, for the Court had already laid it down that, in cases of this kind, it made no difference in what stage of the employment the ship was taken, " whether in the inception, or the prosecution, or the consummation of it" (The " Fortuna," I Dods. 86) They then referred to the articles which were found on board this vessel; the quantity of water and of provisions, consisting principally of beans; the number of irons, of which there was no specification in the manifest , and the platforms and [214] decks of the vessel ; from all which they inferred that the trading in slaves was one of the principal objects of the voyage, and not an incidental and secondary purpose : but that the ship had been sent mainly and primarily to engage in that particular trade. The vessel was taken to Sierra Leone, and the case brought before the Vice-Admiralty Court in that colony , a Court constituted by patent, and possessing nearly the same authority as the High Court of Admiralty. In that Court an information was exhibited, and the judge, considering that the vessel was engaged in a trade contrary to the general law of nations, and to the particular laws of her own country, had very properly rejected the claim, and passed a sentence of condemnation on the property The junsdiction of that Court, they contended, could not now be called in question by the claimant, since he both petitioned the judge there to proceed, and has since regularly appealed against the sentence, instead of acting on the assumption that it was a mere nullity The appellant, therefore, having recognised and voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction, cannot now be heard to question it. On these facts, and on the authority of former cases, they contended that the claimant had precluded himself from claiming restitution of his property. The objection that arises is that familiarly known under the title of turpis causa. Courts of Justice are bound not to protect or encourage crimes; and to take care that they do not render themselves accomplices of wrong-doers. This was the principle acted upon in the case of The " Amedie " (1 Dods. 84 n.) [215] in the Prize Court; and in The " Diana" (1 Dods 100) the same ground of exclusion was deemed proper to be applied in this Court , for the Court there said, " The general injustice of a claim may be the subject of cognisance in a Municipal Court A claim founded on piracy, or any other act, which in the general estimation of mankind, is held to be illegal and immoral, might, I presume, be rejected in any Court on that ground alone." This Court, in acting on the general principles adopted in other Courts, has held that parties are debarred from claiming restitution by the circumstance of their 1 466 " LE LOUTS " 2 DODS. 316. becoming alien enemies ; and there seems to be no ground of distinction why they stould not also be debarred by an offence of this kind, which has been adjudged to have that effect in the Prize Court It is a common expression, that parties are to come into Court with clean hands ; but here they come into Court with hands stained with blood, with the guilt of murder voluntarily incurred in the prosecution of another act in itself scarcely less criminal. They admitted that the Courts of one country are not authorised to take cognisance of breaches of the mere municipal law of another, but contended that the present was a case of a very different description ; for here the Court proceeds on the breach of general law, and only adverts to the law of the particular country to see whether it...