This petition has no date; but it imports to have been written on the day of the receipt of the circular of August 1st at Charleston, and consequently on the 16th of August. It affirms that the brig Three Brothers, for Matanzas, then had on board the crew and necessary provisions, and assigns a probable reason why she could not have been ready sooner. For the reasons, and on the conditions stated in Grove's case, (that is to say, on proof of the facts to the collector, and her prompt departure,) she ought to have a permit. _Everingham's Case._ I put entirely out of sight, as having no bearing on this case, everything which passed prior to the receipt of the circular of July 1st, and consider the case as beginning _de novo_ then, and under that circular. The petitioner declares expressly that on the publication of that circular, (July 20th,) he used every exertion to prepare the ship Diana for a voyage to the Havanna, and had _just prepared her_ therefor when the circular of August 1st was received. The expression _just prepared_, is not absolutely definite. It may respect time or degree. It implies, however, that she was _very nearly_, if not quite, prepared. And if the collector receives satisfactory proof that he was _nearly prepared_, although she might not be in absolute readiness at the first moment of receiving the warning, and on the conditions stated in Grove's case. The case of the schooner James is very different. The petitioner only states that he had _applied_ to the collector, and obtained leave prior to August 1st,--had _begun_ to use exertions, &c., and had _ordered_ her to be careened and graved, &c., when the circular of August 1st arrived, to wit, August 16th, twenty-seven days had therefore intervened, and nothing more than an _order_ given to careen. In the other cases we have seen that the twenty-seven days were sufficient to be in a state of actual readiness, even where a part of the loading was to be sent for from another State. No permit, therefore, can be granted in this case. _Ogier & Turner's Case._ The petitioners state that Ogier had time, after the receipt of the circular of July 1st, to _prepare and despatch_ one vessel; but that they were only _preparing_ other vessels when the second circular was received, to wit, August 16th, whereupon the collector refused to let them despatch the vessels which they had been _preparing_ as aforesaid. A due diligence then having enabled them to despatch one vessel in the twenty-seven days, a like diligence, had it been used, might have despatched others. But from the tenor of their petition, the preparations of the others seem to have been merely incipient, and not near completion. They have consequently lost the claims on that equity which extends relief against rigorous rules, where due exertions have been used to fulfil them, and have been defeated only by accidental and unavoidable want of notice. They are not entitled to permits in this case.