CO129-57 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [7] — Page 37

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