34
wever added on what evidence however I know not, for certainly all the evidence before bien went expressly the other way, that he did not ' think there was any unstention to violate the det; - a matter quite unimportant, trives for the proof of ever the if violation is all that the Court of admiralty requires; in such cases and be concluded by adjudicating not the the forfeitur of the ship but the fine of etinguishing 100° thus the last hope of it hope of the defrauded bleinsamen that, out of the of the ship proceeds and tackle they might be repaid source portion at least of the passage money (75 dollars a head, which they had paid in advance, for a voyage become abortive.
Having regard to all these cirenmstances, and that the discretion opinion that which the Chief Justice has Pleief evercised is not the -judicial discretion conferred by the act, and that his order m varied ou way be appeal, by the- substitution of forfeiture of the ship for the insignificant penalty of 1008, I recomment and advise that avr Appeal beat