34
wever added on what evidence
however
I know not, for certainly all the
evidence before bien went expressly
the other was
way,
that he did not
' think there was a
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
I 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
F
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
being of
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
ر فیلار