
    THE SCHOONER DOLPHIN. ANDREW LACEY, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES. JOHN W. ANDERSON, Administrator, v. THE SAME.
    [French Spoliations,
    2604.
    Decided March 21, 1892.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The Dolphin sails in 1797 from Savannah for St. Bartholomew and is captured by a French privateer. Subsequently she is recaptured by a British ship of war and carried into Antigua, where she is libeled and adjudged to pay the recaptors an amount found, with costs. The owners of the vessel and cargo appeal; it does not appear with what result nor what became of the vessel.
    I. In cases of recapture, followed by a decree for salvage, the measure of damages is the amount awarded, the costs and damages for delay and for the additional voyage, if any.
    II. Where it appears in a case of recapture that the owners appealed born the decree of a court of admiralty awarding salvage, but does not appear what was the result of the appeal, the burden of proof is upon the claimants to establish the fact and extent of their loss. The appeal took the vessel out of the operation of the decree.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of tbe case:
    Tbe following are tbe facts of tbe case as found by tbe court:
    I. Tbe schooner Dolphin sailed on tbe 2d March, 1797, from Savannah for St. Bartholomew. On tbe 15th March she was captured by a French privateer. No reason was given for tbe capture further than that they were in want of such a cargo in Guadaloupe, and that they would give him more than be could get in St. Bartholomew; that they would pay him in sugar and coffee, and that tbe vessel would be no prize. Six men from tbe privateer were put on board tbe schooner and orders were given to take her into Guadaloupe. She sailed under American colors at the time of capture, and offered no resistance. On the 16th March the schooner was recaptured by the British ship of war Boebuck. A prize crew was put on board and she was carried into Antigua, where she was libeled by the recaptors in the vice-admiralty court, and adjudged to pay to the recaptors 427 pounds 6 shillings sterling, and the cost of the proceedings, amounting to 68 pounds 6 shillings. The owners of the vessel and cargo appeared by counsel and contested the claim of the recaptors for salvage, and appealed from the decree. It does not appear what was the result of the appeal, nor what became of the vessel, nor what was the amount of the claimants’ losses.
    II. The Dolphin was an American vessel, duly registered, built atEdgecomb in the year 1794, and of 133 tons measurement.
    III. The cargo of the Dolphin, and likewise the vessel, belonged to Ebenezer Gove and John Gove, and the master likewise owned a portion of the cargo.
    The value of the vessel was. $5,320.00
    The freight earnings of the voyage. 2,220.00
    The value of the owners’ cargo was. 1; 924.00
    The value of the master’s venture was. 365.00
    Amounting in all to. 9,829.00
    IV.The claimants have proved to the satisfaction of the court that all of the original claimants were American citizens, and that the present claimants respectively represent the same persons who suffered loss through the capture and recapture of the Dolphin, and also represent the next of kin of such original claimants.
    
      Mr. jR. K. Bewail for the claimants.
    
      Mr. Alexander O. Moore tor the defendants.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In this case the owners did not suffer a total loss of vessel and cargo. If they had been content with the decree of the vice-admiralty court at Antigua, awarding the recaptors salvage with costs, their loss would now be measured by the amount allowed by the court of admiralty, with perhaps damages for the delay and the additional voyage from Antigua to St. Bartholomew. But the owuers were not content, and appealed from the decree. The appellate court may have reversed it and awarded damages against the libellants with restoration of the vessel and cargo to the American owners. The counsel for the claimants has insisted that in this condition of the case the burden of proof is on the Government to show that the decree of the vice-admiralty court was reversed, and, its reversal not being shown, the United States are liable for the illegal capture of the French privateer. But the court is of the opinion that when the owners invoked the remedy of an appeal they took the vessel out of the operation of the decree, and that the burden of proof consequently is now upon the claimants to establish the fact and the extent of the loss.

The order of the court is that the case be so reported to Congress.  