but only that process issue to try the validity of the patent, on the suggestions stated in the complaint. That this process is in the nature of a scire facias at the common law, to repeal patents, and the issues of fact, if any, are to be tried, not by the court, but by a jury; that the judgment upon this process. is in the nature of a judgment on a scire facias at common law, upon which a writ of error lies, as in other cases, to the circuit court, where there is matter of error apparent on the record, by bill of exceptions, or otherwise. That the patent itself is slight but prima facie evidence, in favour of the patentee, that it ig his invention; that if it appear that he is but a joint inventor, and he takes out the patent as his sole invention, it is an obtaining of the patent upon false suggestion within the act. Stearns v. Barrett, 1 Mason's R.—21. The remaining sections of the act, (11, and 12.) contain no matter of any general importance; the eleventh being directory only as to the fees of office, and the twelfth being a repealing clause of the act of 1770. INDEX ΤΟ THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS IN THIS VOLUME. A ADMIRALTY. 59 1. Libel under the non-importation 3. Decree of restitution affirmed, The 78 4. Libelfora forfeiture of goods imported, an alleged to have been invoiced at a less sum than the actual cost, at the place of exportation, with design to evade the duties, contrary to the 66th section of the Collection Law, ch. 123. Restitution decreed upon the evidence as of the cost of the goods at the place where they were last shipped; the form of the libel excluding all inquiry as to their cost at the place where they were originally sipped, and as to continuity of voyage. The United States v.150 232 Crates of Earthen Ware, The courts of the United States havcexclusivecognizanceof ques tions of forfeiture, upon all seizures made under the laws of the U.States, and it is not competent for a state court to entertain or decide such question of forfeiture. If a sentence of condemnation be definitively pronounced by the proper court of the U. States, it is conclusive that a forfeiture 8. 9. is incurred; if a sentence of acquittal, it is equally conclusive against the forfeiture and in either case, the question cannot be again litigated in any cou mon law forum. Gelston v. Hoyt, 246.311 6. Where a seizure is made for a supposed forfeiture, under a law of the United States, no action of trespass lies in any common law tribunal, until final decrec is pronounced upon the proceeding in rem to enforce such for- 10. feiture; for it depends upon the final decree of the court proceeding in rem, whether such seizure is to be deemed right- 11. ful or tortious, and the action, if brought before such decree is made, is brought too soon. Il. 313 7. If a suit be brought against the seizing officer for the supposed trespass, while the suit for the forfeiture is depending, the fact of such pending may be pleaded in abatement, or as a temperary bar of the action. If after a de-, cree of condemnation, then that fact may be pleaded as a bar; if after an acquittal, with a certificate of reasonable cause of seizure, then that may be pleaded as 12. a bar. If after an acquittal without such certificate, then the officer is without any justification for the seizure, and it is definitively settled to be a tortious act. If, 13. to an action of trespass in a state court for a seizure, the seizing officer plead the fact of forfeiture in his defence, without averring a lis pendens, or a condemnation, or an acquittal with a certificate of reasonable cause of seizure, the plea is bad; for it attempts to put in issue the question of 14. forfeiture in a state court. Id. 314 At common law, any person may, at his peril, seize for a forfeiture, to the government, and if the government adapt his seizure, and the property is condemned, he is justified. Id. 310 By the act of the 18th of Febru ary, 1793, ch. 8. s. 27. etficers of the revenue are authorized to make seizures of any ship or goods, for any breach of the laws of the United States. Id. 31 311 A forfeiture attaches in rem, at the moment the offence is committed, and the property is instantly devested. Id. The statute of 1794, ch. 50. 3. prohibiting the fitting out any ship, &c. for the service of any foreign prince or states, to cruize against the subjects of any other foreign prince, &c. does not apply to any new government, unless it has been acknowledged by the United States, or by the government of the country to which such new state previously belonged. A plea setting up a forfeiture under that statute, in fitting out a ship to cruize against such new state, inust aver such recognition, or it is bad. Id. 323 A plea justifying a seizure under this statute, need not state the particular prince or state by name, against whom the ship was intended to cruize. Id. 329 The 7th section of the statute of 1794, was not intended to apply, except to cascs where a seizure or detention could not be enforced by the ordinary civil power, and there was a necessity, in the opinion of the president, to employ naval or military power for this purpose. Id. 331. 334 The definitive sentence of a of admiralty, or any other court of peculiar and exclusive juri rt diction, whether of condemnation or acquittal, is conclusive, wherever the same subject matter comes incidentally in controversy in any other tribunal. Il. 315 15. Application of this principle to a recent case in England. Note a, 322 16. Supposing that the third article of the constitution of the United States, which declares that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," vests in the United States exclusive jurisdiction of all such cases, and that a murder committed in the waters of a state, where the tide ebbs and flows, is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; yet congress have not in the 8th section of the act of 1790, ch. 9. "for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," so exercised this power as to confer on the courts of the United States jurisdiction over such murder. The United States v. Bevans, 336.87. 17. Quere, Whether courts of com mon law have concurrent jurisdiction with the adiniralty over murder cominitted in bays, &c. which are enclosed parts of the sea? Id. 387 18: Congress having, in the 8th section of the act of 1790, ch. 9. provided for the punishment of murder, &c. committed upon the high seas, or in any river, haven, basin or bay, out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, it is not the offence committed, but the bay. &c.in which it is committed, that must be out of the jurisdiction of the state. Id. 387 19. The grant to the United States, in the constitution, o a. cases of VOL. III. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. adiniralty and inaritime jurisdic tion, does not extend to a cession of the waters in which those cases may arise, or of general jurisdiction over the same. Con. gress may pass all laws which are necessary for giving the . inost complete effect to the exercise of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction granted to the government of the union: but the general jurisdiction over the place,subject to this grant, adheres to the territory as a portion of territory not yet given away; and the residuary powers of legislation still remain in the state. Il. 389 Congress have power to provide for the punishnient of offences committed by persons on board a ship of war of the United States, wherever that ship may lie. But congress have not exercised that power in the case of a ship lying in the waters of the United States; the words "within any fort arsenal, dockyard, magazine or in any other place or district of country under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States," in the third section of the act of 1790, ch. 9. not extending to a ship of war, but only to objects in their na, ture fixed and territorial. It. $90 Texts on the admiralty jurisdiction. Note a, b, 357.361 Resolution of 1632, upon the cases of admiralty jurisdiction. Note a, 365 Agreement of the judges of the king's bench and the admiralty of 1575. Note a, Case of the King v. Bruce. Note a, 377 391 25. A question of fact under the nonimportation laws. Defence set up on the plea of distress r |