when he first saw his patient, he found him in extreme and excruciating pain, from the quantity of cantharides he had drank, and remained so for near a fortnight, and that he was not free from the effects of the potion for several months after.

This was a case which required little or no comment; of course little was said by the plaintiff's counsel on the subject.

On the part of the defendant it was urged, that the whole transaction was nothing more than what is usually termed a drunken frolic, and no injury was seriously intended. That the defendant mistook the quantity poured into the glass; that he did not put so much, he thought, as would by any means injure him.

The Court, in charging the jury, told them, that this was a very wanton outrage upon a stranger in the country. That notwithstanding it was called a frolic, yet the proceedings appeared to be the result of a combination, which wrought a very serious injury to the plaintiff, and such a one as entitled him to very exemplary damages, especially from a professional character, who could not plead ignorance of the operation and powerful effects of this medicine.

Verdict for plaintiff, 400/. damages.

1784.

Genay

V.

Norris.

January

Term, 1784.

Condemna tion of pro

JENKINS against PUTNAM.

perty, taken January term, 1784, before a full bench.*

court of ad

cludes a court

of

law from go

THIS was an action of trover, tried at Charleston, in A privateer, as prize, in a it seems, was fitted out in North-Carolina during the late miralty, pre- revolutionary war, and in the course of a cruise against the common enemy, the crew landed on Edist-Island, while it was ing afterwards under the protection and jurisdiction of the English, took sideration of away a number of negroes, the property of Jenkins, the the legality of plaintiff in this action, and carried them to Washington, The pro in North-Carolina, where they were condemned in a court ceedings and adjudications of admiralty there, and sold as the property of the enemies of foreign courts and in of the United States, or their adherents.

into the con

it.

the United

States, must For the plaintiff, it was contended, that this taking was unhave all due authorised by the rules of war. The commission given to the

faith and cre

dit here.

condemnation

competent

then the

case is

open

But if there privateers, being to cruise and capture the property of their has been no enemies on the high and open seas, does not make any in a court of capture of property on land, legal. The plaintiff was an jurisdiction, American citizen, whose property was not liable to capture, whole of the or condemnation, although he had been compelled by confor investiga- quest, to submit to the jurisdiction of the enemy, and to tion by the live under their protection at the time when these negroes were taken off. And that if the capture was unlawful, not authorised by the rules of war, or laws of nations, no condemnation in a court of admiralty could legalize such seizure.

common law rules.

For the defendant it was urged, that captures made on land, by the seamen from on board of a ship or vessel of war, by the aid of their boats, had always been deemed lawful seizures from an enemy; as much so, as if taken on the high seas. The case of the captures made by Lord

* It was formerly customary in South-Carolina before the great press of business rendered it impracticable, for all the judges to sit on the trials of cases before a jury in Charleston, or at least as many as could with convenience attend; for which reason, very few cases, in the early period of the judicial proceedings, were taken up before the adjourned courts for recon

sideration.

Anson on the coast of the South Seas, was relied on; where it appeared that the seamen and mariners from on board of the ships, landed in their boats, and sacked the city of Quito, some miles from the sea-coast, and took away treasure to an immense amount. This property was afterwards reclaimed in England by the Spanish court, who complained of this landing and plundering a city, as an infraction of the law of nations; nevertheless, the whole was deemed a lawful prize. The case of Admiral Vernon, at Porto Bello and Carthagena, was also mentioned as in point; also, the case of Admiral Pococke at the Havannah, &c. It was further contended, that persons living with, and under the jurisdiction of an enemy, taking a commission and aiding and assisting them, were considered as associates in war; and liable to be treated as such. Vattel, p. 27. 33. 95. Burlemaqui, 279. And that although part of the country had been reduced by the enemy, yet those who were firm and attached to its interests, could have joined their countrymen in arms, if they had thought proper, and assisted in driving off the invaders; or have remained quiet at home, without taking up arms for them. With respect to the negroes taken, it was the duty of the plaintiff to have interposed his claim as an American citizen, in the court of admiralty in North-Carolina, which was a court of competent jurisdiction. And if it had been found good, it would have been sustained. His not doing it, was a tacit admission of the legality of the capture. That at all events, the sentence of the court of admiralty in North-Carolina, would operate as a bar to this action. The only constitutional review of the case, which could have been had, would have been by appeal. And it was the plaintiff's own fault, that he had put it out of his power to appeal. By the act of confederation, the judicial proceedings of one state, had due faith given to them in others; and the acts and proceedings of one court of competent jurisdiction, were not to be questioned in any other, where no appeal had been made. This is the case even between nations not conVOL. I.

B

1784.

Jenkins

V.

Putnam.

1784.

Jenkins

V.

Putnam.

federated, and in cases too manifestly unjust. 2 Ld. Raym. 935, 936. Carth. 31. 1 Atk. 49. If this, then, is part of the law of nations between foreigners, not connected with each other, the reasoning will be much stronger between friendly associated states, bound by a solemn agreement, to give faith and credit to the proceedings in the courts of justice of each other.

Per Curiam. We shall not go into the first and second grounds urged by the defendant in his defence, but take up this matter on the last ground; the two first being very proper for the consideration of the prize court, in which the property was libelled, or a court of appeals, if an appeal had been made; as they involve in them the question of prize, or no prize, which exclusively belongs to the admiralty jurisdiction.

This court is bound by common law rules; and its decisions must be squared by those principles only. What are the leading features in this case? Why, that property has been taken, supposed to be enemy's property, and libelled in a court of admiralty, and condemned; which sentence changed and transferred it from the original owner to the captors. Shall this court, then, go into a consideration of all the circumstances of this case? If they did, it would be trying the legality of the capture over again. We have no such power. We are bound by the sentence of the court of admiralty in North-Carolina, until reversed by some competent authority, and are obliged to give due faith and credit to all its proceedings. The act of confederation is conclusive as to this point, and the law of nations, is equally strong upon it. 2 Ld. Raym. 935, 6. Carth. 31. 1 Atk. 49. If, indeed, the property had been carried off, and there had been no condemnation in a court of competent jurisdiction, then the whole circumstances of the case would have been open for a full investigation, agreeable to the principles of the common law. And if there had been no legal divestment of property, the plaintiff might have supported his action. Or, if the negroes had returned within the jurisdiction of the state of South-Caro

lina, before condemnation, the jus postliminium might have applied, and the original owner might have been restored to his property again. But as the case now stands before the court, the defendant is certainly entitled to a verdict.

Jury found for defendant accordingly.

WHITE against M'NEILY and others.

George Town, April Court, 1784.

Where there are joint trespasses, a jury

may

sever

damages, and

them accord

TRESPASS for entering plaintiff's plantation with others, and taking out of his dwelling and out-houses, household furniture, horses, and other articles, to the value of 1,000l. sterling. It appeared in evidence, that the de- apportion fendants were present with a party of men, who had joined ing to the dethe British, in September, 1780, when the plaintiff was plundered of household furniture to a considerable amount, several of his horses taken away, and his dwelling-house

burnt.

For the defendant M'Neily, several witnesses were called, particularly Alexander Scott, William Floyd and David Lee, who all testified that he was made a prisoner himself in his own house, compelled to deliver up his arms, and from thence was carried a prisoner to the plaintiff's plantation, and there remained under a guard during the whole time the house and plantation were plundered. That he did not interfere or receive any part of the property so plundered or taken away; on the contrary, that he was carried a prisoner from captain White's, the plaintiff's plantation, to Britton's Ferry, fifteen miles distance, and from thence to major James's plantation, ten miles further, and there discharged, and permitted to go home, after being three days a prisoner with the party.

It was, however, proved, that in November following, he joined the British, and went into the garrison at GeorgeTown, and did duty as a militia man in their service. From

gree and na

ture of the

offence com

mitted by

each offender.