Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION. 1682 and 1685.
The Case of the Patience and Palmtree Ships
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
1682. February 14.—The case of the two prize-sloops, called the Patience and Palmtree, of Sunderberg, was this day debated, the Duke of York being present. It was argued how far the Lords might review their own decreets. See the 12th Act of Parliament 1661, and Bouritii advocatus, c. de Revisione.
The King's Advocate had this compliment to his Royal Highness, that to speak of marine cases before his Royal Highness, who was so expert therein, was as impertinent as Phormio's harangue to Hannibal concerning the art of war.
The Lords found these ships had carried double documents; yet, to pay the more respect to his Majesty, they referred the whole case to him.
Vol. I. Page 173.
1682. November 24.—The case of the Patience and Palmtree ships, (mentioned 14th Feb. 1682,) was this day advised, and decided against the capers, in favours of the strangers; finding them to be free ships, and so reducing the admiral's decreet which had adjudged them prizes; and the capers are made liable in solidum for restitution.
Their refusing to show their documents or passes to the capers or privateers is a great presumption of an enemy's ship, and that it is unclear. Yet it is no probation, for ships may be unwilling to show their passes for fear privateers may destroy them; yet it is a ground to bring them up, and to assoilyie the privateer from damages and expenses for so doing. But it is not a sufficient ground whereupon these ships can be adjudged.
Vol. I. Page 196.
1685. January 22.—The Lords sequestrated this forenoon for advising and deciding the famous and oft debated cause of the capers of the two prize Danish ships, called the Patience and Palmtree, mentioned Nov. 7th, 1684. It was now debated, that the King's letter could not take away the strangers their decreets absolvitor in foro. 2do, They argued, they were not in the case stated in the King's letter.
There arose a great dissension, if the proving that they carried either double or concealed documents, any one of them was sufficient to confiscate the ship, or if they behoved to prove both,—whether it was the and copulative, or the or disjunctive. Though some lawyers inclined to think any one of them sufficient, yet many of the Lords were for adhering to their last interlocutor, that they were free ships; but that the capers had probable grounds to bring them up, and therefore assoilyieing them from all damages, and finding them only liable for the value as they were rouped. But the Statesmen carried it, that the case should be remitted to be finally decided and determined by the King. So, if his Majesty pleases, he shall get causes enough to hear, by this his cumulative power. Vide another letter from the King anent these ships, 5th March 1685.
Vol. I. Page 333.
1685. March 5.—There is a letter from his Majesty, anent the two ships called the Patience and Palmtree, mentioned 22d January 1685, explaining his brother's letter, and declaring them lawful prize, because of their double documents. This was procured by Sir William Bruce, then at London. And thus John Inglis, advocate, multam operam et oleam perdidit in this cause.
