United States v. La Vengeance
Decision Date | 01 August 1796 |
Citation | 3 Dall. 297,3 U.S. 297,1 L.Ed. 610 |
Parties | The United States v. La Vengeance |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Error from the Circuit Court for the district of New York. It appeared on the return of the record, that La Vengeance, a French privateer, had captured and carried into New York, a Spanish ship, called La Princessa de Asturias; and that thereupon Don Diego Pintardo, the owner of the prize, filed a Libel in the District Court, complaining of the capture; alledging that La Vengeance was illegally fitted out within the United States; and praying restitution and damages: but on a claim, exhibited in behalf of the owners of the privateer, the District Court dismissed the Libel with costs; and, upon appeal to the Circuit Court, that decree was affirmed. The fate of Pintardo's Libel determined, likewise, the fate of an information filed ex officio, by the District Attorney, claiming the privateer as a forfeture, upon the same allegation, that she had been illegally armed and equipped in the United States, in violation of the act of Congress: and in both these decisions the parties acquiesced.
But a third proceeding had been instituted against the privateer, in which the District Attorney filed, ex officio, an information, stating 'that Aquila Giles, Marshal of the said district, had seized to the use of the United States, as forfeited, a certain schooner, or vessel, called La Vengeance, with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, the property of some person, or persons, to the said Attorney unknown; for that certain cannons, muskets, and gun-powder, to wit, 2 cannon, 20 muskets, and 50 boxes of gun-powder, were between the 22nd of May, 1794, and the 22nd of May, 1795,* exported in the said schooner, or vessel, from the said United States, to wit, from Sandy-Hook, in the state of New Jersey (that is to say, from the city of New York in the New York district) to a foreign country, to wit, to Port-de-Paix, in the island of St. Domingo, in the West-Indies, contrary to the prohibitions of the act, in such case made and provided,' etc: And praying judgment of forfeiture accordingly. A claim was filed on behalf of the owners of the privateer, denying the exportation of cannon or muskets; and alledging that the gun-powder constituted part of the equipment of the Semillante, a frigate belonging to the Republic of France, and had been taken from her and put on board the privateer, to be carried to Port-de-Paix, by order of the proper officer of the said Republic. It was, also, alledged, that the schooner, after her arrival at Port-de-Paix, was bona fide sold to one Jaques Rouge, a citizen of the French Republic, in whose behalf the claim was instituted.
After argument, the District Judge decreed, that the schooner should be forfeited; but, upon appeal to the Circuit Court, the decree was reversed, and Judge Chace certified that the judgment of reversal was founded on the following facts: 2nd. 'That upwards of 40 boxes of gun-powder were carried at the same time, from the said United States, in the said schooner to Port-de-Paix, aforesaid: But that such gun-powder was taken from on board the Semilliante frigate, lying in the harbour of New York, was a part of her equipment, did not appear ever to have been landed in the said United States, was carried out for the use of the French Republic, was delivered to the commander in chief at Port-de-Paix - and was not exported by way of trade or merchandize.'
From this judgment of the Circuit Court, a writ of error was brought on behalf of the United States, the general errors were assigned, and the Defendant in error pleaded in nullo est erratum. The issue was argued on the 10th of August, by Lee, Attorney General of the United States, for the Plaintiff in error, and by Du Ponceau, for the Defendant:* but no exception was taken, by the former, in reference to the merits of the cause.
Lee, Attorney General:
There are two grounds on which this writ of error is to be supported-1st. That it is a crininal cause; and, therefore, it should never have been removed to the Circuit Court, the judgment of the District Court being final in criminal causes: And 2nd. That even if it could be considered as a civil suit, it is not a suit of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction; and, therefore, the Circuit Court should have remanded it to be tried by a jury in the District Court.
1st. Point. All causes...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hendry Co v. Moore
...by Congress for the violation of federal revenue and other laws where the seizure had occurred on navigable waters. United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297, 1 L.Ed. 610; United States v. The Schooner Sally, 2 Cranch 406, 2 L.Ed. 320; United States v. The Schooner Betsey and Charlotte, 4 ......
-
U.S. v. One 1976 Mercedes Benz 280S, Serial No. 11602012072193
...1955), 38, 40; Albert J. Beveridge, The Life of John Marshall (1916-19) II, 195-96, IV, 119-20.27 Marshall here cited La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297, 301, 1 L.Ed. 610 (1796) ("exportation of arms . . . is . . . a water transaction" hence a case of admiralty jurisdiction "of the nature of a libel......
-
Tyler v. People
... ... of the circuit court of the United States of America for the ... district of Michigan, began and held at the city of Detroit, ... This ... was the only constitutional question decided in La ... Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297. The question we are considering ... did not arise, and could not have arisen, in ... ...
-
State v. Owens
... ... Rapalje ... on Contempts, p. 110, states: ... "It may safely be laid down as a general rule that ... statutory provisions relative to ... The ... Supreme Court of the United States in the case of ... Bassette v. Conkey, 194 U.S. 326, 335, 24 S.Ct. 665, ... 48 L.Ed ... 469). In admiralty cases, trial by jury has ... never been recognized. U.S. v. La Vengeance (1796) 3 ... Dall. 297, 1 L.Ed. 610; Whelan v. U. S. (1812) 7 ... Cranch, 112, 3 L.Ed. 286; ... ...