Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
[From the Times, April 18,
1866.]
Admiralty Court—April 17.
(Before the Right Honorable
Dr. Lushington)
the gibraltar, otherwise
sumter.
This was a suit on behalf of the government of the United States of
America as plaintiffs to obtain possession of this vessel. The
vessel had been purchased in the year 1861 by the then government of
the Confederate States of America, and having been armed and
otherwise equipped, proceeded to sea and cruised in the West Indies
and elsewhere, and captured divers vessels belonging to subjects of
the United States. In the month of January, 1862, she put into the
port of Gibraltar, where she was sold to Melchior George Klingender,
who subsequently employed her in running the blockade, in which
service she continued until the close of the war, when, having put
into Liverpool, she was arrested in this suit. No appearance had
been entered on behalf of any person as owner to dispute the right
of the plaintiffs, and the usual notices having been given, the
court was now moved to decree possession of her to the
plaintiffs.
The Admiralty advocate, Mr. Brett, Q. C., and Mr. E. C. Clarkson
appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs.
The court decreed possession as moved.
the beatrice, otherwise
rappahannock.
A similar suit has also been instituted against this vessel, but the
cause is defended, and still undetermined, and shortly after its
institution a second suit was commenced to obtain
[Page 107]
payment for ropes and other supplies
furnished to the vessel, and in the second suit the defendants, the
American government (who are the plaintiffs in the suit for
possession,) had pleaded substantially the same allegations upon
which they rely in their pleadings in the other suit.
Mr. Pritchard moved the court to direct that as there were in effect
the same averments in both suit, the suit for necessaries should be
suspended till after the decision in the previous cause.
The Admiralty advocate, Mr. Brett, Q. C., and Mr. E. C. Clarkson
appeared in opposition to the motion.
The court was of opinion that inasmuch as the application was
opposed, the court had no right to enforce a suspension of the suit,
unless such a course were required by the circumstances of the case,
which could scarcely be said in the present instance.
Motion refused.
