U.S. Supreme Court
The Active v. United States, 11 U.S. 7 Cranch 100 100 (1812)
The Active v. United States
11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 100
The departure of a vessel from the wharf of a port and proceeding a mile and a half therefrom with intent to go to sea is not a departure from the port within the meaning of the third section of the Supplementary Embargo Act of January 9, 1808, if the vessel had not actually gone out of the port before seizure.
A licensed fishing vessel is liable to forfeiture under the thirty-second section of the Act of the 18 February, 1793, for enrolling and licensing vessels; for sailing, laden with goods, with intent to carry them to another place without a license therefor, although the goods are wholly of domestic growth and manufacture, and not liable to any duty. But such cargo is not liable to forfeiture unless it belong to the master, owner, or a mariner of the vessel chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtualawlibrary
This was an appeal from the sentence of the Circuit Court of the District of Connecticut which affirmed that of the district court condemning the sloop Active and cargo.
The libel stated that the sloop Active was an American vessel duly enrolled and licensed for the cod fishery on 5 July, 1808, and had given the bond required to be given by such vessels under the several acts of Congress laying and enforcing the embargo, and had a permit to depart and be employed in the cod fishery.
That in the night between 4 and 5 July, 1808, at the port of New London, there was secretly and unlawfully laden on board her a cargo consisting of barrels of beef, fish, butter, &c., without the knowledge and not under the inspection of a revenue officer, with intent unlawfully to proceed with the vessel and cargo to some place without the port, harbor, and district of New London. That the vessel, so laden, left her place at the wharf in the port of New London in the night without the knowledge of any custom house officer, without a license or permit, and without any custom house papers, and departed therefrom and out of the said port, and proceeded on her said intended unlawful voyage to some place to the custom house officers unknown. That the cargo was worth more than $600. That the vessel was unlawfully employed in trade other than that for which she was licensed.
The facts of the case appeared to be as stated in the libel, except that the vessel was seized in the act of leaving the port, but before she had gone out of the port, and that Gates, the owner of the greater part of the cargo, was neither master, owner, nor mariner of the vessel. chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanroblesvirtualawlibrary