THE WATCHFUL
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 Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a prize libel against the vessel *Watchful* because the evidence failed to establish that the property was enemy property or that there was intent to break a blockade or trade with the enemy. However, the Court reversed the order for restitution of the vessel and cargo, finding that the evidence presented a prima facie case of violation of municipal law (including falsified clearance papers and concealment of a cargo of arms), and remanded the case to allow the government to file a new libel based on these violations rather than prize law.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
[*93] Mr. Justice MILLER,
delivered the opinion of the court.
It is very clear that there is no case of prize made out by the evidence. The property, which was undoubtedly Wallis’s, was therefore not enemy property; nor is there any evidence of intention to break the blockade or to trade with the enemy. The case is so destitute of. all the elements of prize that the present libel was properly dismissed.
As to the other ’point more insisted on by the Attorney-General. The record, as it stands, .shows that the vessel cleared for Hamburg, when her destination was certainly Matamoras. That her clearance was probably altered after she was at sea, by writing over the word “Hamburg” the word “ Matamoras.” That a false manifest was used, and the fact of the main cargo of two hundred and fifty-two cases of arms being on board, was carefully concealed from the officers of the customs at New York, from which port she sailed. It is not necessary to go any further into this evidence, or to express any other opinion on it, than to say that it presents a prima facie case of violation of municipal law, which justifies further investigation.
In the case of United States v. Weed et al.,
*
we had occasion, at the last term, to consider the question of the practice proper under such circumstances. We then came to the conclusion that where sufficient evidence was found to justify it, the case would be remanded to the court below for an amendment of the libel, or for such other proceedings as the government might, under all the circumstances, choose to adopt.
The judgment of the District Court, dismissing the libel in prize, is accordingly affirmed, but that part of the decree awarding restitution of the vessel and cargo, is reversed, with directions to allow libellant a reasonable time to file a new libel. If this is not done within the time thus fixed by the court, the property to be restored by a new decree.
*
5 Wallace, 62.