BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Captain Seaton v The Owners of the King David. [1673] Mor 11924 (23 July 1673) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1673/Mor2811924-042.html Cite as: [1673] Mor 11924 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1673] Mor 11924
Subject_1 PRIZE.
Date: Captain Seaton
v.
The Owners of the King David
23 July 1673
Case No.No 42.
Prize adjudged on account of false documents.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Captain Seaton having insisted for declaring the ship called the King David, prize, on these grounds, that the documents were false, and contradicted by the skipper; and the skipper and steersman, by their oaths, did acknowledge they were Embdeners, and that the whole loading, and most of the ship, belonged to them;
Whereupon the Lords declared the ship and goods prize, albeit the skipper deponed, that he became a sworn burgess of Frederickstadt in Denmark, in anno 1671, and that his wife was with him five or six weeks that year, and that he had ever since a hired house there, and paid scot and lot, seeing he acknowledged that his wife remained still in Embden since; and that the steersman deponed, that the skipper's wife dwelt in a house severally from her daughter, who is married in Embden; neither was it found relevant, that the skipper offered to prove, that he dwelt in Frederickstadt, and paid scot and lot, seeing he did not transport his family, because the Hollanders might, upon that pretence, make themselves burgesses of any free place, and for some inconsiderable stock there bear burden, when truly they had not changed their domicile, or deserted the enemy, leaving their families there, where it is presumed they did
bear burden; nor could the privateer be put to prove, that they did bear bur-den in Embden, it being an enemy's country, to which there was no safe access.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting