ENPages
(seq. 27)
Judge of the Vice Admiralty Court by that [[Petition?]] they submitted themselves [[?]] again & did an Act Inconsistent with their Appeal which is a presumption of it.
As to the share which the privateers are intitled to & in what manner the Division is to be made is a point of more doubt. The Act of Parliament & his Majestys proclamation have not provided for it nor has it come Judicially before he Court of Admiralty # The same Rule cannot comprehend both because the proportion is settled in regard to ships in his Majestys pay but in regard to privateers is left to the agreement made between the owners & Ships Company. There seems therefore some [?] Discretionary power [in the?] Court according to the [?] of the case and that in the present 1/4th to each of the privateers appears to be the most equitable division
J. Andrew
[Dr} Commons [?] 14 Jany 1744
There is no doubt but that privateers are Intitled to share with the Kings Ships in prizes taken by their mutual Assistance There are many Instances thereof in [?] war and some in the present war. In joint captures the Law has left the allottment of the share of each ship to the Discrection of the Judge who is to found his [?] upon the circumstances of each particular case In the present case it is agreed that the two Privateers & the Kings Sloop were engaged with the [Enemy?] But it seems to be allowed that the privateers had the greatest part in the action and that the Argyl was aiding & assisting to the Capture only by his presence without engaging at all he had therefore the least merit & share in the [service?] But if the prizes were to be Distributed according to the number of men he wod have the greatest share of the reward which I cannot think would be Just upon the whole I am of opinion the Judge at Barbardos has given a proper and reasonable [?] And I am advise presenting the Appeal.
Geo. Lee [Drs] Commons Novr. 29th 1745
(seq. 29)
Barbados At a Court of Grand Sessions of Oyer and Terminer, General Goal Delivery, and General Sessions of the peace, hold for the Body of this Island, at the usual Court House in the Town of Saint Michael on Wednesday the Fourteenth day of June 1758.
Present
The Honorable Benjamin Mellowes Esq. Chief Justice. The Honble Samuel Rows Esq. The Honble Henry Thornhill Esq. The Honble Edmund Tonkins Esq. The Honble John Lyle Esq. The Honble John Land Esq. The Honble Francis Bell Esq.
Reynold Gibbes Anthony Lakoque Hillary Rowe Junr. Leo Devisine William Moll } Esqrs { Thomas Payne (of St. Joseph's) }Esqs{ Gedney Clarke Junr. Thomas English James Barry Edward Blount Thomas Cadogan Hillary Rowe (Son of Hillary Rowe Junr.) Edward Stoute
Then John Maynard Esqr. informed the Court, that the Provost Marshall had behaved in an unwarrantable and cruel manner to Mr. John Gascoigne who had been taken up on an Execution for the Sum of Seventeen hundred pounds and upwards due to George Hogshard Esq. who was virtually himself, tho' not nominally the Deputy Provost Marshall. That the said Gascoigne was first with the approbation of Letts the Deputy Provost Marshall confined in the House of David Miln the Goal keeper. That he was from thence by the said Provost Marshall, after the said Gascoigne's having given the security required of him, removed to the Common Goal, and thow contrary to an Act of the Island closely confined in a room with Felons and Madmen. He therefore
(seq. 30)
therefore moved the Court that the said Mr. Gascoigne might be allowed the liberty of the goal [gaol] yard as the law directs, offerring to produce witnesses of the facts he mentioned, and naming the security that had been given, which motion was also fully spoke to by Timothy Blonman Esqr. Mr. Sollicitor General likewise thought proper to signify his sentiments not as counsel for Gascoigne, but as a publick officer and to discountenance oppression to the subject. After which Mr. [Cowse?], of counsel for the Provost Marshall, after having with submission objected to the jurisdiction of the court in this case, opposed the said motion. But Mr. Attorney General then insisted on the courts authority to examine into the behavior of their immediate officer the Provost Marshall, and recommended it to the Court to take the proofs that had been offerr'd by Mr. Gascoigne's counsel, and thereupon Capt. John Crouch, Doctor Thomas Pollard, Mr. David Miln, and Mr. William Knight were sworn and examined in support of the said motion: And Mr. Miln, the goal [gaol] keeper, under Mr. Lotts the Provost Marshall being called upon by Mr. Gascoigne's counsel for a written order they were instructed he had received from the Provost Marshall for the removal of Mr. Gascoigne from his house to safe and close custody in the common goal [gaol], but the producing thereof being objected to by the counsel for the Provost Marshall and the objection answered by Gascoigne's counsel, the question was put, whether the goaler [gaoler] shall produce the directions he received from the Marshall in respect to Mr. Gascoigne or not, and it was carried in the affirmative by all the court, except the Hon'ble Edmund Jenkins Esq. who declined giving his vote on account of his being an attorney to the [patentee?] of the Marshall's office. The said directions were thereupon produced and read, and then after Mr. Kiln himself had been particularly examined in respect