Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/326

Richard Dickenson, commander of the Hunter man of war, by virtue of a commission from the King so impowering him, took the ships Ann, and the John and Martha; and that those ships with their cargoes were condemned by the admiralty, and amounted in value to 2800l. of which the company paid 1400l. to his Majesty, and 700l. to Captain Dickenson; who, twenty years after, viz. in 1696, exhibited his bill in Chancery against the company and respondent Dockwra, complaining that Dockwra, pretending himself owner of the Ann, and her cargo, had recovered 2630l. 12s. against him in an action of trover, for the Ann and her cargo, and that he was not able at the trial to produce an authentic copy of the condemnation and seizure, and that he only acted under a commission from the King Charles in pursuance of the Guinea company's charter; and that the ship and cargo was condemned by a Court of Admiralty, and that he delivered them to the company's agent; and prayed to be relieved against the verdict: And that Dockwra, by his answer insisted on his verdict, and knew of no such instructions or condemnation, and that Dickenson was a wrong doer, and the charter a [328] monopoly and illegal; and that he would have sued sooner, but that Dickenson was sheltered by King Charles, King James, and by a commission from King William, and that he proceeded as soon as he could without offence to governments; and admitted one Nightingale was owner of five sixteenth's of the ship and cargo, which Nightingale, appellants shewed, was no party to the suit; and that appellants had by their answer insisted on their charter, and that King Charles had sent Dickenson to the coast, and conceived his instructions sufficient to justify his actions, and denied that they ought to indemnify him, and that this was twenty years ago, and few or none of the company then living; and that Captain Dickenson died, and his wife and administratrix married respondent Langdon, and revived the suit; and upon the hearing the Master of the Rolls dismissed the bill as against Dockwra, but decreed appellants to pay the whole money recovered against Dickenson to the other defendant Dockwra, and that Dockwra should be admitted to prosecute the said decree against the appellants in the name of Langdon and his wife: And that appellant's estate was sequestred, and they forced to pay the 2630l. 12s. to the commissioners named in the sequestration, which was since paid to Dockwra: And appellants complained that they were aggrieved by that decree, because they contended the bill ought to have been dismissed for want of proper parties; Nightingale, and others who appeared to be entitled to part of the ship and goods, and who had since exhibited their bill against Dockwra, and appellants to have their proportion: And that the Attorney General ought also to have been a party, because the validity of the grant from the Crown to appellants was in question, and because of the moiety paid to the Crown; and that if even Dickenson had any equity against appellants, they ought not to be bound by the verdict and damages, they not being parties or privy to the suit, especially as it appeared that Dickenson had not made as good a defence as his case was capable of: And further, that Dockwra ought not to have been relieved at all, because be well knew that such captures were in those days as often made as such ships could be met with, and adjudged legal, and that all parties concerned traded upon such hazard, and acquiesced under such captures, and that Dockwra himself took the law to be such in those days, and never thought of relief [329] till 1696, above twenty years after; and that appellants stock and trade was now upon a new foundation, by virtue of a late act of Parliament; and that the additional stock, and new adventurers, were likely to be charged with these stale transactions, though they had come in upon the new establishment: And finally, that though appellants were liable, they ought to answer for no more than came to their use; and that Dickenson ought not to be discharged from the 700l. appellants paid him, nor ought appellants to be charged with the 1400l. they had already answered to the Crown. (J. D'Arnal.)

The respondent Dockwra on his part stated, that the Royal African company upon application to King Charles the second, to be accommodated with a man of war, (pretending the same necessary to countenance and protect their trade) obtained from his Majesty that the Hunter, then under the command of the said Richard Dickenson, should, at appellants charge, put to sea, and proceed to the coast of Guinea, with instructions proposed and contrived by appellants, that if he should find any ships stopping or trading on the coast of Africa, he was to endeavour to speak with them; and if he should find any subjects there, not