What additional

was a party of military or not. terror does an army hold out? The consequences of captivity would be the same in either case, and unless there had been a notice and denunciation of particular severity, I do not understand that by the laws of war they would be exposed to more than a rigorous imprisonment." (The Dordrecht, 2 Rob. 57.)

Where a capture is made by a conjoint expedition, composed of a British naval force and an allied army, the case is withdrawn from the operation of the Prize Act, and the British captors depend wholly on the bounty of the crown for advantage from the capture. (The Stella del Norte, 5 Rob. 350; The British Guiana, 2 Dod. 151.)

Joint capture will not be rejected by reason of any fraudulent conduct on the part of the actual captor. In the case of The Waaksamheid (3 Rob. 7), where the captain of the capturing frigate Sirius was charged with having, contrary to the rule and practice of the navy,' made no signal of an enemy to other British vessels in sight, Lord Stowell said, in admitting the claim of the latter to joint prize: "Their discontinuance of the chase and alteration of the course is not an act of their own, but an act wrongfully occasioned by neglect or mistake or wilful omission on the part of The Sirius; and being so, would not have the effect which generally would follow upon a discontinuance of the chase and alteration of course before the act of capture took place; for generally, a discontinuance and alteration would defeat the interest of a joint captor, by destroying the presumption of assistance and intimidation."

The Galen (1 Dod. 433), The Herman (3 Rob. 8),

The Robert (ib. 194), The Eendraught (ib App. 35), The Minerva (2 Acton, 112), La Virginie (5 Rob. 124), L'Amitié (6 Rob. 267), and The Sparkler (1 Dod. 362), are other cases in which fraud on the part of the captors has been held to vest an interest in the claiming joint captor.

The whole act of capture being the act of the captor, who is the only person therefore responsible for costs and damages, the joint captor is exposed to no share of that liability. (The Fadrelandt, 5 Rob. 123.)

Where an actual engagement has previously taken place between a constructive joint captor and the prize, the decision of the court is favourable to the claim of the joint captor. H. M. S. Sparrow had engaged L'Etoile, a French frigate, a joint cruizer, The Hebrus being then in the distance. The next day L'Etoile was taken by The Hebrus, The Sparrow being still in chase. It was contended that The Sparrow was entitled to share, and Lord Stowell admitted the claim. "I hold it," said the learned judge, "to be a clear and indisputable rule of law, that if two vessels are associated for one common purpose, as these vessels were, the continuance of the chase is sufficient to give the right of joint capture. Sight under such circumstances is by no means necessary, because, exclusive of that, there exists that which is of the very essence of the claim-encouragement to the friend and intimidation to the enemy. Both The Hebrus and the enemy's frigate knew that The Sparrow was astern, and that she was using her best endeavours to come up. She was a consort of the actual captor, and pursued the prize in conjunction with her, and

had not discontinued the pursuit at the time when the capture was consummated." (2 Dodson, 107.)

Where two cruizers casually meet, one of which is commanded by an officer senior to the other commander, though of the same rank, a circumstance which by the rules of the service gives to the former the command, and he directs his junior to pursue one of two hostile vessels in sight, while he himself chases the other, both vessels being taken, the junior is entitled to share as joint captor of both. In the case of The Empress (1 Dod. 368), Lord Stowell said "I consider it to be a clear rule of law, that ships engaged in a joint enterprize of this kind, and acting under the orders of the same superior officer, are entitled to share in each other's prizes; and it is certainly for the benefit of the public service that a rule of this sort should prevail, in order that the public force of the state may be distributed so as to produce the greatest possible advantage to the country, and the greatest possible annoyance to the enemy." Mere previous concert, however, between several cruizers will not give all a right to share in the prizes of each, where they have so dispersed themselves that it is manifestly impossible for either to receive support from the others. The Mars (2 Rob. 22) was the case of a French ship taken by one of three king's ships, which, being apprized of the design of the enemy to escape from Port au Prince, had taken their stations at different outlets to intercept them. The capture was made by one ship. A claim was given on behalf of the other two to share as joint captors, though not present at the capture, but it was rejected. Nor will

a claim to joint capture enure to an associated cruizer, where, having before reconnoitred the prize, she had actually stood off on another course. (The Lord Middleton, 4 Rob. 155; see, to the same effect, The Rattlesnake, 2 Dod. 32.) A vessel detached from a squadron by a signal to chase, and which, after accomplishing that duty, engages in a second chase and captures, is exempt from any claim to joint prize on the part of the associated squadron. Le Bon Aventure (1 Acton, 211) was the case of a French ship captured by H. M. S. Albion under the circumstances described; the associated squadron asserted a claim of constructive joint capture, but the Lords of Appeal rejected it. "Upon the principle thus advanced," said Sir W. Grant, "it is necessary to inquire, under the circumstances of the present case, whether a vessel commencing a second chase in sight of a fleet of which she had constituted a part before she had been detached by signal upon a former chase, and capturing the second chase at any distance from such a fleet, would necessarily, upon this principle, be compelled to let in the claim of the whole fleet to share in a prize so made, notwithstanding such fleet afforded no assistance or co-operation in the capture, but actually bore away from the captor on another tack. No such principle has ever been recognized."

There is one species of recapture from the enemy which vests the whole interest in the recaptor-namely, where an enemy's ship taken originally by one English vessel, and lost again to an enemy's cruizer, is subsequently recaptured by another English ship. It has occasionally become a subject of discussion in the Prize Court of this country, and also in France, whether

any interest revested in the first seizor; and in 1778, in the case of The Lucretia, the Court of Admiralty was disposed, though apparently in departure from more ancient precedents, to consider the first taker as the captor, and the subsequent taker as the recaptor, entitled to a high salvage. It does not appear that this case was appealed from. But in another instance the same point was much contested before the Lords of Appeal, in the case of The Polly (Lords, 21st Nov. 1780), in which the prize had been rescued by the American crew, and retaken, and condemned to the last captor in the Vice-Admiralty Court of New York. On appeal, brought by the first seizor, the Lords affirmed the sentence of the court below, holding that the original captor had not completed his possession; that the incipient interest which had been acquired by the first taker was entirely divested by the subsequent rescue, and that the final British captor was to be considered as the efficient captor, and as such entitled to the whole benefit of the prize. In the case of The Marguerite (3rd April, 1781), the same question was brought before the Court of Appeal, with the only difference, that the first recapture had been made by a French frigate. The Lords pronounced a decree to the same effect, and condemned the appellant in costs. Valin (Traité des Prises, c. 6, § 1) says, that this point was established in the French Court of Prize in favour of the ultimate captor, by a decree in 1748.

RANSOM.

When by lawful means a belligerent had possessed himself of property belonging to his enemy, it was for