of persons taking a false oath respecting any matter. mentioned in the Act, or falsifying any document provided by the statute, a fine of 500l. is imposed upon the offenders. They are to be recovered in the usual manner, according to the Custom-house laws, and the Customhouse officers are to share them. Power is given to governors of colonies, or commanders in chief in his Majesty's possessions abroad, to delay any suit concerning ships' registers, till the opinion of the Privy Council can be obtained. Copies of the Scotch and Irish certificates are to be forwarded at the end of every month to the Commissioners in England. The provisions of the Acts which direct registry have been very strictly adhered to; so much so, that, unless perhaps in case of fraud, a court of equity will grant no relief upon the infraction of them. An omission cannot be helped more than a breach of the Annuity Acts which have received the sternest construction, and thus it follows, that a neglect to comply with the requisitions concerning the registry of a vessel, will in many cases leave a party quite remediless, since he will neither have a legal nor an equitable title (i). Ownership in Vessels. Sect. 49. Sect. 50. Sect. 48. Sect. 47. Change of property in a vessel generally takes place by sale or capture. A bill of sale is commonly the instrument used to convey the property, but the vendee should be careful to require the prompt delivery of his purchase; for there are many cases which show that if the seller be allowed to retain possession, and he wyn, 240, Mair become bankrupt, the property will go over to the 2 Broderip & 4 Maule & Sel Bingham, 114, Monkhouse v. Hay. 2 Barnewall & Alderson, 193, Hay v. Fairbairn. 5 Maule & Selwyn, 228, Robinson v. Macdonnell, 1 Barnewall & Cresswell, 588, Kirkley v. Hodgson. Ship Warre. (i) See 6 Vesey, jun. 745; 13 Vesey, jun. 589. C Robinson v. M'Donell, assignees notwithstanding the sale, though it is of course otherwise if the buyer take possession before a 2 Barnewall & bankruptcy (k). But possession cannot always be given, Alderson, 134, as where a part of the ship is the subject of contract (1), or during the performance of a voyage. In the first case, as the possession of one part-owner is the possession of all, a vendee, though never in possession, may have a share in a ship. In the second, a delivery of the grand bill of sale will transfer the property, and vest it in the transferrer; but, as we have said, possession should be had upon the ship's return, so that a mortfirmed by Lord gagee who neglected this step was held to lose the Kenyon, 7 Term benefit of his vessel (m). 1 Anstruther, 222, Addis v. Baker. 2 Term Rep. 462, Atkinson v. Maling, con Rep. 233; Sect. 10, of 6 Abbott on Ship. ping, 5th ed. p. 15; March Rep. 110, pl. 188. 1 Robinson, There is a provision in the new Registry Act, that prizes, duly condemned, should be entitled to the privileges of British ships; an ownership may therefore be acquired by capture from an enemy in time of war, It is not, however, entirely settled at what precise moment the interest becomes divested; some saying, that a hostile possession of twenty-four hours will effect the change; others, that it does not take place till the prize has been carried into a place of safety (n). But there must be a legal sentence of condemnation, Admiralty Rep. p. 139, by Lord Stowell, (k) So if an execution be sued out against the seller, a sale may be deemed fraudulent and void as it regards the party obtaining the judgment. Abbott on Shipping, 5th ed. page 12. (1) Unless a part-owner be in actual possession. page 13. Abbott, (m) A mortgagee is now relieved by Statute 6 George4, ch. 110, sect. 45. (n) Infra præsidia. and this judgment is considered by a neutral purchaser 3 Robinson, 97, to be one of his ship's title deeds. For where a neutral note, the ship Constant Mary. state detained and sold a vessel without condemning 1 Marshall Rep. her, it was held, that the owner did not lose his inte- 425, Wilson v. rest, and that the possession remained in the original 6 Taunton, 25, proprietor (o). Forster. same case. 2 pher. Maria. 1 It seems clear, that where the captors carry a prize into the port of a state in alliance with them but at enmity with the conquered, they may condemn it in their own, or in the friendly country by their consul; 2 East, 478, but it is not so certain upon principle that the captors Robinson, 209, Oddy v. Bovill. should condemn in their own state a ship carried into The Christoa neutral port, although restoration of a British ship 4 Robinson, 43, taken into Norway by a Dutch privateer and con- The Henrick & demned at the Hague has been refused by the Judge of the Admiralty. Yet, again, it is not disputed that a ship must be returned where she is condemned at a neutral port. As where a French squadron sent an Rubinson, 135, English ship into Bergen in Norway, and sold her The Fladoyen. there; and so again, where a vessel condemned in this manner, and purchased, was re-captured by a ship be- 8 Term Rep. longing to the country of the former captors, but restored 268, Havelock upon appeal after a second condemnation; for the second proceedings gave no real authority to the first, which were illegal. And it is of no consequence that the sentence has been acquiesced in by the government of the neutral country, for, by Lord Ellenborough, "I am by no means disposed to extend the comity which has been shown to these sentences of foreign admiralty courts (p)." (0) It is different where the ship is duly forfeited, for then the property is divested. 5 Term Rep. 112, Wilkins v. Despard; 1 Salkeld, 223, Roberts v. Wetherall. (p) So that Lord Kenyon's opinion in Smith v. Surridge, 4 Espinasse, 25, is shaken by this decision. He held that v. Rockwood. 3 Robinson, 96, v. Thompson. 2 Burrow Rep. 683, Goss v. Withers. Nevertheless, if a ship be legally condemned as prize by a hostile power, the property is decidedly out of the owner, so that the insured may recover as for a total loss. It is scarcely necessary to observe, that piracy meets with no encouragement in any country; a predatory seizure will, therefore, be quite ineffectual to divest the ownership of a vessel. It appears, however, that we have ceased to consider the Algerines as pirates, 4 Robinson, 3, for our Court of Admiralty has refused restitution of a ship sold under the authority of the Dey of Algiers, by whose subjects it had been captured, to a merchant of Minorca. The Helena. Owners-their Liabilities and Duties. Although the legal right to a vessel reside in the owner by virtue of his bill of sale, it does not follow that he is necessarily charged with every liability incident to the possession of such a property. The great ruling principle at this day is to ascertain the person who has holden himself out to the public as owner-the party to whom the credit of ownership has been given, and this doctrine is capable of a clear and extensive illustration. Thus, although the ship remained in the vendors for a month after the sale, the vendee was the individual held liable for repairs ordered by the captain, because they had been performed under the purchaser's direction. And, on the other hand, the seller was compelled to pay for materials furnished to this vessel, notwithstanding a transfer on his part by a good bill of sale before all the articles were delivered, and notwithstanding any equitable agreement between the parties; for the credit was given to the owner personally. there might be a difference, if the neutral county acquiesced in the condemnation. A man purchased a share in a ship under a defective conveyance, but he never held himself up as the owner, nor did he interfere at all with the destination of the 2 Bingham,179, vessel it was held, that inasmuch as no credit had been Harrington v. Fry. given to him as a proprietor, he could not be considered chargeable in respect of stores. So, where one parted with his interest in a ship by a faulty transfer, but took the precaution of notifying the change in every possible way, he was held to be clearly exonerated from paying for goods furnished for the owners, and on the same 16 East, 169, ground, namely, the absence of personal credit. And it is quite a mistake to suppose that the register is conclusive evidence of the ownership. That might have been so formerly, but the doctrine has been quite super-nings v. Grifseded by the principle stated above; are the repairs, (for fiths. example,) done upon the credit of the defendant (q)? (9) It was certainly considered at one time that the register was conclusive, till the defendant showed his non-liability. 2 Campbell, 339, Stokes v. Carne. But the Court of Common Pleas having supported the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, who required some proof of consent on the part of the registered owner, the Court of King's Bench followed the decision, and held, that a defendant named upon the oaths of others as a part-owner could not be charged unless he adopted the acts which had been done. 2 Taunton, 5, Fraser v. Hopkins, in the Common Pleas; 14 East, 226, Tinkler v. Walpole, in the King's Bench; 3 Campbell, 456, Smith v. Fuge; Id. 475, Reusse v. Meyers; 4 Taunton, 802, Cooper v. South. It is, however, rather singular that Lord Ellenborough had doubted the propriety of allowing the register to have so stern an operation many years before, and said, he would not agree to bind a man without knowing his concurrence (5 Espinasse, 31, Ditchburn v. Spracklin); yet in Stokes v. Carne he held otherwise. Wherever, therefore, we now find it said, that the register is prima facie evidence of ownership, it must be taken to mean, that the defendant has M'Iver v. Hum ble. Moody, 42, Jen |