"honorable Court that he may be admitted to citizen"ship upon his complying with the requisites of the "act aforesaid, and your petitioner will pray, &c. "JOHN PHILIP STARK. "Jacob Hostler appearing in ourt, and being du❝ly sworn, says that the petitioner above named has "resided within the state of Pennsylvania five years and "upwards; and during that time he has behaved as a ❝man of good moral character, attached to the princi"ples of the constitution of the United States, and well "disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. "JACOB HOSTLER. "Sworn and subscribed in open Court the 21st of "May, 1804. "CHARLES W. HARTLEY. "John Philip Stark, the above petitioner appearing ❝in open Court and being duly sworn, doth declare that "he will support the constitution of the United States, and "that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure "all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, po❝tentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly "to Christein the prince of Wetgenstein Berleburg, in the "empire of Germany. "JOHN PHILIP STARK. "Sworn and subscribed in open Court the 21st of "May, 1804. "CHARLES W. HARTLEY. "Whereupon the Court admitted the said John Philip "Stark to become a citizen of the said United States, agree"ably to the prayer of his said petition, and ordered all "the proceedings aforesaid to be recorded by the clerk of "the said Court." The Plaintiff also proved by parol evidence that he being a free white person, did reside within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, to wit: in the state of Pennsylvania, at some time between the 18th day of June, 1798, and the 14th day of April, 1802, STARK v.. CHESA PEAKE INS.CO. STARK v. CHESA PEAKE viz on the 1st day of October, 1798, and there continued to reside from that time until the 21st of May, 1804. Whereupon, the Court, at the prayer of the DefenINS. Co. dants, by their counsel, directed the jury that the Plaintiff had failed in proving the property insured under the policy, to be American property according to the warranty, and therefore was not entitled to recover. To which instruction the Plaintiff took a bill of exceptions. The act of congress of the 14th of April, 1802, vol. 6, p. 74,"to establish an uniform rule of naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that sub"ject," requires that the applicant should have made a previous declaration before some Court of record of his intention to become a citizen, &c. three years before his admission; and that the Court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided in the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such Court is at the time held, one year at least. The act of 26th March, 1804, vol. 7, p. 136, dispenses with the previous declaration of intention, &c. as to such aliens, being free white persons, as were residing "within the limits, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, at any time between the 18th day of June, 1798, and the 14th day of April, 1802, and who have continued to reside within the same." The objection made by the Defendants counsel to the record of naturalization of the Plaintiff was, that it did not appear by the record, that the Plaintiff had made à previous declaration of his intention to become a citizen, agreeably to the first provision of the act of 14th April, 1802; nor that he was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States at any time between the 18th of June, 1798, and the 14th of April, 1802, and continued to reside therein so as to be entitled to the benefit of the act of the 26th of March, 1804. It was contended also that parol evidence of these facts ought not now to be admitted in aid of the record. On the part of the Plaintiff it was contended: 1. That the decicion of the Court of common pleas for the county of York was conclusive. That Court had power and authority to admit aliens to the right of citizenship-and having admitted the Plaintiff, the grounds of their decision cannot now be enquired into, nor the correctness of their judgment questioned. 2. That if the record of admission be not conclusive, yet it was competent for the Plaintiff to prove now by parol evidence the facts which did, at the time he was admitted, entitle him to the benefit of the act of the 26th of March, 1804. HARPER, for the Plaintiff in error, and MARTIN, for the Defendant in error, Submitted the question arising in this case without argument to the COURT, who, without giving a more particular opinion, pronounced the following JUDGMENT: This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record and was argued by counsel, on consideration whereof, this Court is of opinion that the Circuit Court erred in directing the jury, that the Plaintiff had failed in proving the property, insured under the policy, to be American property. It is therefore considered by the Court, that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed and annulled, and the cause remanded to that Court to be further proceeded in according to law. Judgment reversed. WILLIAM WILLIAMS AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, บ. STARK บ. CHESA PEAKE INs. co. 1813. GEORGE ARMROYD AND OTHERS, APPELLEES. Feb. 25th. Absent, TODD, J. THIS was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit A sentence of Court for the district ef Pennsylvania, which dismissed a foreign trithe libel with costs. bunal con demning neu WILLIAMS บ. and in viola which has The libel stated, that the schooner Fortitude, owned & OTHERS by Williams and others, citizens of the United States, having taken in a cargo of molasses at Martinico, sailARMROYD ed on the 20th of August, 1809, for New London. That & OTHERS. on the next day she was piratically seized on the high seas by an armed schooner, shewing no colours, but astral property serted to be from Guadaloupe, and carried into St. Marunder an edit tin's, where the captain's papers were taken from him, unjust in itself, contrary to the and the vessel and cargo detained, as it was asserted, to law of nations, wait the event of a trial. That on the 9th of Septemtion of neutral ber, the prize-master left St. Martin's for Guadarights; and loupe, with a copy of the schooner's papers, under prebeen so declar- tence of causing proceedings to be instituted in the ed by the le- French Court of Admiralty in that island. That on the gislative and 23d of September, the master of the Fortitude went to partments of St. Bartholomews, and on his return was informed, that the govern during his absence the Governor had ordered the vessel United States; and cargo to be sold at public sale; which was done and changes the bought for the Governor and one of his council, as the property of the Libellants believed. That immediately after the sale, thing condemned A the Governor took possession of the vessel, and on the sale by the 2d of October the cargo was landed, and 97 hogsheads authority of the captors of the molasses were shipped on board another vessel before sen- to Philadelphia, where they arrived, consigned to Armdemnation, is royd and others, of whom the Libellants demanded it, affirmed by but they refused to deliver it, or to account for the vasuch sentence, lue of it. executive de ment of the tence of con and is good ab initio. property seiz decree, and A French triA claim was interposed by George Armroyd & Co. bunal at Guadaloupe had in behalf of Richardson & Carty, and others, which statjurisdiction of ed, that on the 21st of August, 1809, and long before, ed on the high war existed between Great Britain and France; that seas for breach the Fortitude, being an American vessel at peace with of the Milan the French empire, on her voyage from Martinico, a earried into British colony, where she had been trading with the the Dutch enemies of the French empire, during the war, in viopart of the island of St. lation of the decrees and regulations of that empire, was Martins, and seized by a French privateer, and carried to St. Marthere sold by tin's, as lawful prize to the captors; and her papers Dutch gover- sent to a French tribunal, having competent jurisdiction, at Guadaloupe, under the sole and exclusive doMartins, before condem- minion and jurisdiction of the French empire; but the nation, with papers were captured on the passage to Guadaloupe. rity from the That the vessel and cargo, being so carried into St. French tribu- Martin's, were there bona fide sold by order of the Dutch order of the nor of St. out any autho governor at the island, to whom such right belonged, by WILLIAMS the laws and constitutions of the said island; and the & OTHERS goods in question, part of the cargo, were bona fide pur v. chased by a certain I. L. Lapierre, and by him bona fide ARMROYD sold to a certain Abraham Concheyter, from whom they & OTHERS. were afterwards bona fide purchased by Richards & Carty, for account of themselves and others. nal at Guadaloupe. The American By consent of parties, a sentence was passed pro for- owner cannot ma in the District Court, for the Libellants. reclaim, in the Courts of this country, his which has been seized property In the Circuit Court, upon the appeal, the Claimants exhibited a further answer, stating, that by a decree of the Registry of the Commission for prize causes of the and condemnisland of Guadaloupe, and its dependencies, duly con- court under stituted a Court of Prize by the Emperor of France, on the Milan dethe 12th of October, 1809, the schooner Fortitude, and cree. her cargo, were condemned, by a sentence which is set forth at large in the answer; the substance of which sentence is included in the following extract; viz. "It results from the examination and from the analysis of the papers just mentioned, that the schooner Fortitude, captured by the French privateer, Le Fri"pon, is the property of a citizen of the United States "of America; that she sailed from New London, bound "to Martinico, at which place she sold her cargo, and "took in another of molasses for the said port of New "London, and consequently she has incurred the penalty, pronounced by the 3d article of the Imperial decree, which directs new measures against the maritime "system of England, and was given at the Royal Palace of Milan, on the 17th of September, 1807, in*serted in the bulletin of the laws, No. 169, which ar ❝ticle is as follows: "Every vessel whatever, and whatever be her cargo, which shall have cleared from any English port, colony, or country occupied by English troops, or which shall be bound to any English port, colony or country "occupied by English troops, shall be good prize, as having infringed the present decree. Such vessels "shall be captured by our men of war, and awarded to the captors." VOL. VII. 55 ! |