Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1047

in the original cause, was Judge of the Court where the nonsuit was pronounced, which nonsuit is the only breach assigned of the condition of the said bond, and consequently he was both judge and party in those proceedings.

On the other side it was said (E. Northey, D. Dee), that the Lord Mayor was not the sole Judge of the Court of Hustings, because by the constitu-[411]-tion of that court it might be held in his absence, and that therefore the only ground of error assigned by the plaintiff had no foundation.

And after hearing counsel on this writ of error, it was ordered and adjudged, that the judgment given in the Court of Queen's Bench should be affirmed. (Jour. vol. 18. p. 515.)

In the beginning of the year 1777, the ship the May or George, Gregory Cozzens, master, sailed from Charlestown in South Carolina, loaded with rice and indigo, for Bordeaux in France, and in the prosecution of the voyage on the high seas, upon the 16th of March 1777, the crew rose in opposition to the master, and brought the ship into Lamlash in North Britain, and from thence she was brought into the harbour of Port Glasgow, where she remained during the whole time of the following proceedings.

On the 15th of May, 1777, George Gostling, jun. Esq. one of the appellants, brought the ship's papers into the Registry of the High Court of Admiralty of England, annexed to an affidavit of Samuel Seddon, Esq, and the usual monition issued, citing all persons in general, having, or pretending to have any right, title, or interest in the premises, to appear at the day, time, and place therein mentioned, and to shew cause, why the ship and goods should not be condemned, as droits of Admiralty; and a commission was decreed, for examining witnesses upon the usual interrogatories, directed to the magistrates of Edinburgh and Glasgow, jointly and severally; which commission was afterwards executed at Glasgow, and returned to Mr. Gostling.

On the 2d of June 1777, a claim was given in for the ship, to the High Court of Admiralty of England, in behalf of John Benson and John Postlethwaite, of Liverpool, merchants, as a recapture, the said ship having been formerly taken from them by the rebels, when she was called the May.

On the 21st of June 1777, the cause was heard before Sir George Hay, then Judge of the High Court of Admiralty of England, who, after considering the proofs, decreed the ship to be restored to the former owners, paying an eighth for salvage; and pronounced the goods, wares, and merchandize therein, to be the property of the inhabitants in the colonies in rebellion, and as such liable to confiscation; and having been taken by persons without any commission, condemned the same as prize, and droits and perquisites of our Sovereign Lord the King, in his [412] Office of Admiralty, and decreed a commission to appraise the ship and sell the cargo.

Such commission was accordingly issued, directed to Messrs. Jackson and Colquhoun, and to Alexander Spiers, Esq. the two first named by Mr. Gostling, and the last by the claimant's procurator, to appraise the ship, and to the said John Jackson and Patrick Colquhoun, to appraise and sell the cargo.

The respondent, Mr. Monro, being apprized of these proceedings by an advertisement in the Glasgow newspapers, that the sale of the cargo of said ship was to be upon the 8th of August 1777, and conceiving it to be his duty, as Procurator Fiscal of the High Court of Admiralty of Scotland. did present to the Judge of that court a petition, praying that any procedure to be had in virtue of the said order of the High Court of Admiralty of England, might be stopped; upon which the Judge, on the 6th of August, pronounced the following interlocutor:

Having advised the foregoing petition of Mr. John Monro, Advocate, Procurator Fiscal of the High Court of Admiralty of Scotland, grants warrant to Macers of Court, Messengers at Arms,