The "Elize, " otherwise "Elise Wilhelmine"

the " euze," otherwise "ELiSE wilhelmine" (Petersen.) Admiralty Prize Court, Nov. 22, 1854.-A customs' officer having wrongfully seized a neutral vessel on her arrival at Leith, on the ground of an alleged breach of the blockade of Archangel, condemned in damages and costs. [S. C. Sp Pr Gas. 88, 2 Eng. Pr. Cas 327; 1 Jur. (N S.) 95. Referred to, The "Zam0m,"[1916]2 A C. 86] This vessel, belonging to a Danish merchant, and sailing under Danish colours, 3 SP HOC. ft AD. 32. THE "ELIZE" 291 arrived at Archangel on the 10th of August last On the 13th, the commanders of the English and French squadrons sent in a flag of truce, and officially announced that, from that day, Archangel would be effectively blockaded, and that any vessel attempting t enter that port would be seized for a breach of the blockade; but that all vessels which had already entered would be allowed fourteen days from such date to load their cargoes and depart unmolested. On the 20th this vessel, in company with many others, sailed from Archangel with a cargo of mats and tar, passed unmolested through the blockading squadron, and arrived safely at Leith. She had [32] there discharged about half her cargo, when, upon the llth of October, she was seized by the Custom-house officers for breach of the blockade of the port of Archangel. Tie usual examinations in preparatory having been taken were brought in, together with the ship's papers on the 20th of October, when the Judge directed them to be opened; and, at the petition of the Admiralty Proctor, decreed the usual monition. On the 4th of November a proctor appeared and claimed the vessel on behalf of her owner, a Danish merchant On the 8th of November, the proctor for the seizor offered to restore the vessel, which offer the proctor for the claimant refused to accept without damages and costs. The case now came on for argument simply upon the question of damages and costs. The Queen's Advocate (with whom was the Admiralty Advocate) for the seizor. Restitution having been offered, the sole question is, whether the seizor is to be condemned in costs and damages. There is no ground for such condemnation. This vessel sailed from Archangel after the commencement of the blockade, which was duly aotified at that port, and was subsequently announced in the Gazette. As soon as it was found that License had been given to vessels to come out for fourteen days, the offer of restitution was made,-four days only after the claim had been given in. The seizure, too, was justifiable on another ground. There was, among the ship's papers, no Danish sea-pass,-a most essential document to foreign neutral ships, and the absence of which would alone justify the seizure; Story's Prize Practice, p 193. It is difficulty to conceive upon what principle, or upon what case, the complainant can rely after the= decided opinion which the Court has already expressed in other cases, with respect to giving costs and damages against captors. The " Ostsee." (a) [383 Efr- Addams for the claimant No case need be cited. On the broad principles of justice, where one party has suffered damage by the wrongful act of another, he is entitled to compensation It is his right ex debito justitise. Unless it is to be the rule laid down by this Court with respect to neutrals trading with this country, that every Custom-house officer is to be at liberty to arrest their vessels and cargoes, and to interrupt their trade, without being liable to make good the losses they may occasion by a wrongful act, the seizors in this ease must be condemned in costs and damages. There was not a shadow of a pretence for seizing this vessel. There was clearly no breach of blockade ; and if there had been, the delictum was purged by the termination of the voyage, and the discharge in part f the cargo. But it is said this ship had no Danish sea-pass on board. That matters not: there is no question as to the Dutch character of the vessel, and the having a Dutch sea-pass on board is a nutter belonging to the domestic regulations of Denmark, of which this Court does not take cognizance. On the principle laid down (a) Aug. 13, 1854-The "Ostsee," a Meeklenburgh Schwerin vessel, was sent to England for condemnation as for breach of the blockade of Cronstadt, but was restored by consent of the Crown The owners applied for costs and damages against the captors The Queen's Advocate and Dr Deane appeared for the captors; Dr. Addams and Dr. Twiss for the claimants, Dr. Lushington refused the application, and said, that out of the many thousands of cases which came before Lord Stowell for adjudication, there were only ten or twelve in which he accompanied the restitution of the ship with costs and damages. The learned judge then said : " Without venturing any opinion as to what I may feel it my duty to do in fature cases, I think, looking at the confusion which has arisen respecting ports being blockaded, and the difficulties which captains of Her Majesty's vessels must experience in forming their own opinion upon it, it would be going too far to condemn the present captors in costs and damages and I therefore decline to do so."...