BRIG JAMES WELLS
v.
THE U. STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The brig James Wells was prosecuted for violating a law requiring vessels to proceed to a United States port, and the ship's owner sought to invoke an exception based on danger or impossibility of compliance. The Supreme Court affirmed the vessel's condemnation, holding that the owner failed to meet his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he made genuine exertions to reach a U.S. port or that doing so would have been impossible or dangerous, particularly where the vessel's course to the West Indies shortly after departure suggested an original intent to violate the statute.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Washington J.
delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:
That the law under which this prosecution is founded, has been, prima facie, violated, is admitted; and it becomes absolutely necessary for the defendant, if he would excuse the breach, to bring himself within the “exception ma/de for his benefit, not by doubtful testimony, but by such as shall leave no reasonable doubt of -the sincerity of his exertions to proceed to some port in the United States, and the danger or apparent impossibility of doing so.
.That the vessel, shortly after ..leaving New York, leaked considerably is proved;-but it is also proved that the leak was in her upper works; that she could be freed, and, by great exertions, was kept free of water. It is clearly proved that, after a sail of six days, she fcore away for the West-Indies, and the danger of continuing on the coast is indirectly stated, though no where positively affirmed.
But it is not proved by a single witness that an exertion was made to gain a port of the United States, or that the attempt, if it had been made, would, in the opinion of one person, on board, have failed or been attended with danger. Nor are the state of the winds, or the lat itade and longitude of the vessel when she bore awáy, given in. evidence so as to enable the Court to judge, In short, had the original destination been to the West-Indies, and this known to the crew, it would be difficult to fix perjury upon any one of those who have given evidence in this cause.
In such a case, where no presumption can, or ought to be made in favor of the owner of the vessel, and with so strong a temptation as he had to violate the law — her condemnation is inevitable.
Sentence affirmed, with costs„
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stern v. Tarrant Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 778 F.2d 1052 (5th Cir. 1985)…n district would not be unconstitutional on its face and would be open to attack only if it were shown, as it is not here, that the exclusion of one and the election of another were invidious and purposely discriminatory. Compare Missouri v. Lewis, [11 Otto 22, 30, 32, 101 U.S. 22, 30, 32, 25 L.Ed. 989]; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra. 321 U.S. at 11, 64 S.Ct. at 402. That Yick Wo’s guarantee of equality in administration of the laws turns on federal rather than state standards is also made plain in the Cour…
-
The Argo, 2 Wheat. 287 (U.S. 1817)…s, by commission, out of this court, or the circuit courts, in causes of admiralty and- maritime jurisdiction.. This rule applies both to prize and instance causes. Farther proof is admissible in the latter as well as the former. (The William Wells, 7 Cranch. 22. The¡ Clarissa Claiborne, lb. 107.) But it must not be understood that instance or revenue causes stand on the same footing with prize causes, in respect to the inadmissibility of farther proof, until they are heard on the original evidence. Farther…