"Mercurius"-(Harmens)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 December 1808 |
| Date | 16 December 1808 |
| Court | High Court of Admiralty |
English Reports Citation: 165 E.R. 1030
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ADMIRALTY
Referred to, Dunn v Bucknall [1902] 2 K B 620, The "Leonora," [1918] P 225, affirmed [1919] A C 974
" mercurius "-(Harmens) Dec 16, 1808 -The interposition of a British port held to take the vovage out of the interidmetit of the Order 7 Jan 1807 [Keferred to, Dunn v BucKnall [L902J 2 K B 620 , The "Leonora," [1918] P 225, affirmed [1919] A C 974 ] This was the case of a ship under Bremen colours, which at the time of capture was proceeding with a cargo of brandies on a voyage from Bourdeaux to Bremen, but with directions to put into a British port for the purpose of obtaining a licence from this Government ; and the question was, whether an actual destination to a port of this country according to those directions was sufficient to counteract the imputation of a fraudulent breach of the Order in Council, and the eftect of a continuous intention Judgment-8tr W ficott I think [ must take it as fully proved, that the intention of the party was to come to this country to obtain a licence to proceed to Bremen with the cargo, which, as coming from Bourdeaux, could not otherwise be earned on This fact is dis-[54]-closed in the papers, and is as strongly guaranteed as any fact can be , and to this I have to add, that the Court has everv reason to presume that the application would have been made to Government in a fair, open, and unreserved manner The parties have acted throughout apetto voto, there is nothing to lead to a suspicion of disingenuous conduct Then the question comes to this, whether such a voyage intended ultimately to Bremen, but first to this country, for the purpose of obtaining a licence, without which it was to be relinquished, is a continuous voyage, and therefore illegal 2 I think clearly not : it is a contingent voyage, depending upon the determination, not of the parties themselves, but of the British Government ; if the ship went on at all, it was to be the act of the British Government This is very different from the case of American ships touching at their own ports, to which it has been assimilated , here the voyage was to be continued only rf legalised by the Government which would have a right to complain of the illegality ; no two cases can be more unlike The parties seem to have acted on a persuasion, perhaps too confidently entertained, that such a licence would be granted, misled either by some speculative reasonings of their own, or by...
To continue reading
Request your trial