H.B.T.

3, SERJEANT’S INN,

22nd April, 1854.

NOTES

[1:  See Justice Story’s Judgment in the Case of the La Jeune Eugenie.  Life, Vol. i. 341.]

[2:  The Law of Reprisals; Vide note (A.)]

[3:  Rutherford’s Institutes, vol. ii. p. 509.]

[4:  2 Wheaton, p. 11; 1 Kent, p. 54.]

[5:  Per Sir W. Scott—­Case of the Eliza Ann, 4 Rob.  Adm.  Rep. 247.]

[6:  Wildman’s International Law, vol. ii. p. 5.]

[7:  1 Kent, p. 54; Vattel, book 3, chap. iv. sec. 64.]

[8:  1 Kent, p. 55.]

[9:  2 Wheaton, p. 12; 1 Kent, p. 55; Rutherford’s Institutes, book 2, chap. 9, sec. 10.]

[10:  2 Wheaton, p. 12-25; 1 Kent’s Com. p. 55-6; Brown v. United States, 2 Cranch, 110; see also 228, 229.]

[11:  Idem.]

[12:  Grot, book 3, chap. 20, sec. 16.]

[13:  1 Rob.  Adm.  Rep. 64.]

[14:  2 Wheaton, p. 19.]

[15:  Lindo v.  Rodney, Doug. 612; The Boedes Lust, 5 Rob.  Rep. 233.]

[16:  Per Lord Mansfield, Lindo v. Rodney.]

[17:  Wolff v. Oxholm, 6 M. and S. 92.]

[18:  Grot. book 2, chap. 18, sec. 344; book 3, chap. 5, sec. 77.]

[19:  Whewell, Grot. vol. 3, p. 151, sec. 4; p. 165, sec. 4 (2).]

[20:  1 Kent’s Com. p. 65.]

[21:  Bynkersheok, Quaest.  Sur.  Pub. lib. i. cap. 3; 2 Wheaton, p. 26.]

[22:  Robinson’s Adm.  Rep. p. 196.]

[23:  The Hoop.]

[24:  The Rapid, 8 Cranche’s Rep. p. 155.]

[25:  The St. Lawrence, 8 Cranche’s Rep. p. 434.]

[26:  The Juffrow Catharina, 5 Rob. 141.]

[27:  2 Wheaton, p. 37.]

[28:  1 Kent’s Com. p. 67.]

[29:  The Rendsborg, 4 Rob.  Adm.  Rep. 132.]

[30:  Park, p. 497.]

[31:  Toulmin v. Anderson, 1 Taunt. 227.]

[32:  Potter v. Bell, T. Rep. 548; The Hoop, supra.]

[33:  Vandyck v. Whitmore, 1 East, 475.]

[34:  Park, 502.]

[35:  Park on Insurance; Arnold on Insurance; Gist v.  Mason, I T. R. 84.]

[36:  Idem.]

[37:  The Immanuel, 2 Rob.  Adm.  Rep. 198.]

[38:  Park, 502; Sewell v.  Royal Exchange Assurance Co. 4 Taunt. 856; Wilson v.  Marryat, 8 T. Rep. 31.]

[39:  Willison v.  Patterson, 7 Taunt. 439; Vide Note on the War Bill Act, at the end of this part.]

[40:  Per Gibbs, C.J.  Antoine v. Morshead, 6 Taunt. 238.  According to Mr. Serjeant Byles, a bill drawn by a British prisoner in favour of an alien enemy cannot be enforced by the payee.  He cites no case in support of this assertion; but on the principle of the last case cited, if it were drawn for subsistence and not for trade, there seems to be no reason why it should not be legal.]