7
214
been laid up in this harbour for seven months previous to her being chartered to search for the missing junk, which was seized when seeking to defend the Nefel.
Sir Rutherford says, a judge would probably require detailed and satisfactory proof of the employment of the Ship for some time previous to the voyage during which she was seized." Such language evidently insinuates that the "Prince Albert" had previously been recently engaged in illegal trade, a suggestion entirely gratuitous and so untrue, as she had not been to sea for seven months, that it might be regarded as even over-stepping the legitimate limits of an Advocate employed in court about the confiscation of the Nefel.
I would further observe that he departs from his official duty of notifying his view of the Law for general information, where he attacks the whole of the "Prince Albert" case, and treats as unworthy of credit all statements made by the owner and master of the ship, though not one of them has been disproved. Therefore, in this special case, so as to prejudice the parties seeking redress, and taking it upon himself to illustrate the improbability of statements made by men of respectability, he runs the risk of being...