Trial of the Officers and Crew of the Privateer Savannah, on the Charge of Piracy, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New YorkWarburton, A. F. (Adolphus Frederick)
History
Trial of the Officers and Crew of the Privateer Savannah, on the Charge of Piracy, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York
Warburton, A. F. (Adolphus Frederick)
Piracy -- United States; Privateering -- United States; United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865
"One species of treason, namely, that of committing hostilities at
sea, under color of a foreign commission, or any other species of
adherence to the King's enemies there, may be indicted and tried as
piracy, by virtue of the statutes."
That is, that although being guilty of treason, in its general
character of adhering to the enemy, yet it also falls within the
description of piracy, and may be proceeded against as such. On the
question of the element of force or intimidation as entering into the
crime of robbery, I refer to 1st Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, page 235:
"Wherever a person assaults another with such circumstances of
terror as put him into fear, and cause him, by reason of such fear,
to part with his money, the taking thereof is adjudged robbery,
whether there were any weapon drawn, or not, or whether the person
assaulted delivered his money upon the other's command, or
afterwards gave it him upon his ceasing to use force, and begging
an alms; for he was put into fear by his assault, and gives him his
money to get rid of him.
"But it is not necessary that the fact of actual fear should either
be laid in the indictment or be proved upon the trial; it is
sufficient if the offence be charged to be done _violenter et
contra voluntatem_. And if it appear upon the evidence to have been
attended with those circumstances of violence or terror which in
common experience are likely to induce a man to part with his
property against his consent, either for the safety of his person
or for the preservation of his character and good name, it will
amount to a robbery."
I refer to Hale's Pleas of the Crown, vol. I., p. 68, on the question
of double or doubtful allegiance:
"Though there may be due from the same person subordinate
allegiances, which, though they are not without an exception of
the fidelity due to the superior Prince, yet are in their kind
_sacramenta ligea fidelitatis_, or subordinate allegiances, yet
there can not, or at least should not, be two or more co-ordinate
allegiances by one person to several independent or absolute
Princes; for that lawful Prince that hath the prior obligation of
allegiance from his subject can not lose that interest without
his own consent, by his subject's resigning himself to the
subjection of another."
I refer to the case of the United States _against_ Tully, 1st
Gallison's Reports, p. 253-5, to show that the statute does not, in
terms, require that there shall be any personal violence or putting in
fear to constitute robbery, provided the offence is committed _animo
furandi_.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account