|
The
East-India
Company
,
Appellants
,
|
Mr.
Attorney
General
at
the
Relation
of
Walter
Whitfeild
,
John
Earl
,
and
Thomas
Killner
|
Respondents
.
|
The
Appellants
Case
.
THE
East-India
Company
at
their
vast
Charge
Established
a
Trade
to
the
East-Indies
very
profitable
to
this
Kingdom
;
And
had
full
Power
by
their
Charter
from
the
two
last
Kings
,
to
make
War
or
Peace
with
any
Heathen
Princes
within
their
Limits
,
as
occasion
should
require
,
without
any
reservation
to
the
Crown
or
Lord
High
Admiral
of
England
of
the
Tenth
,
or
any
other
part
of
Prizes
.
That
the
Great
Mogul
unjustly
began
a
War
against
the
Company
,
and
seized
their
Factories
,
Servants
,
and
Goods
,
and
murthered
several
English
,
and
besieged
their
Forts
and
Castles
in
the
East-Indies
,
of
which
the
late
King
James
and
his
Council
being
informed
,
his
Majesty
was
pleased
to
direct
the
Company
(
for
the
Preservation
of
their
Rights
,
and
the
Vindication
of
the
Honour
of
this
Kingdom
)
to
make
War
against
the
Great
Mogul
and
his
Subjects
;
and
gave
Commissions
to
several
of
his
Captains
of
Ships
of
War
to
assist
the
Company
,
and
observe
their
Orders
in
the
Prosecution
of
that
War
;
thereby
requiring
the
Captains
to
take
care
that
the
Tenths
of
all
Prizes
taken
by
them
in
that
War
,
and
condemned
as
lawful
Prize
,
should
be
secured
and
paid
to
the
said
late
King
.
This
War
continued
several
years
,
but
at
last
a
Peace
much
to
the
Honour
of
this
Kingdom
,
was
made
,
whereby
all
that
was
detained
or
stopped
in
the
Indies
during
the
War
on
both
sides
,
and
not
plundred
or
destroyed
,
were
to
be
restored
to
each
other
,
and
such
Goods
of
the
Mogul's
Subjects
as
the
Company
had
sent
home
,
were
to
be
paid
for
by
them
,
which
they
have
since
satisfied
accordingly
.
That
the
whole
Expences
of
that
War
(
which
were
vastly
Great
)
were
born
by
the
Company
,
and
the
King
put
to
no
Charge
,
and
the
Tenth
of
all
Prizes
in
that
War
taken
and
condemned
in
the
East-Indies
,
amounting
in
the
whole
to
1361
l.
13
s.
●1
d.
were
duly
paid
into
the
Exchequer
upon
the
Relators
Motion
.
But
the
said
Relators
pretending
there
were
more
Prizes
taken
and
condemned
then
those
answered
to
Their
Majesties
as
aforesaid
,
got
a
Privy-Seal
for
a
Third
of
the
Tenth
part
of
all
Prize
Goods
during
that
War
,
and
prevailed
with
Mr.
Attorney
General
,
at
their
Relation
,
to
Exhibit
a
Bill
into
the
Court
of
Exchequer
against
the
Appellants
for
an
Account
of
all
Prize
Goods
generally
,
and
to
have
the
Tenths
of
the
same
.
To
which
Bill
the
Appellants
put
in
their
Answer
,
and
insisted
on
several
Matters
arising
in
the
Indies
material
and
necessary
to
be
proved
,
and
upon
which
their
just
defence
depended
;
and
therefore
often
moved
that
Court
for
a
Commission
thither
to
examine
their
Witnesses
,
but
were
denied
the
same
.
That
after
the
Commencement
of
that
Suit
,
two
of
the
Companies
Ships
called
Charles
the
II.
and
New
London
,
arriving
with
Goods
from
the
East-Indies
,
the
Relators
upon
pretence
that
those
Goods
were
all
or
most
Prize
Goods
,
obtained
an
Order
from
the
Court
of
Exchequer
to
carry
into
Ware-houses
,
and
open
and
view
the
whole
Cargoes
of
both
Ships
,
which
they
did
.
disordering
every
Bale
thereof
to
the
great
damage
of
the
Goods
,
a
great
part
whereof
was
bought
by
the
Companies
Factors
in
the
East
Indies
,
and
other
part
belonging
to
other
Marcha●ts
,
and
so
the
Appellants
could
have
proved
,
and
again
moved
the
Court
of
Exchequer
upon
Affidavits
for
a
Commission
to
prove
the
same
,
but
were
still
denied
it
,
though
the
Proof
was
put
upon
them
by
Mr.
Attorney
General
's
replying
to
their
Answer
,
and
although
the
said
Court
by
their
Order
of
the
9th
of
May
last
,
had
given
the
Company
time
to
consider
whether
upon
their
having
a
Commission
they
would
give
Security
to
abide
the
Order
of
that
Court
on
Hearing
the
Cause
touching
●he
Sum
of
Mony
reported
due
,
which
was
but
9000l
and
had
a●terward
al●owed
of
Security
offered
by
the
Company
for
that
purpose
,
yet
they
could
obtain
no
Commission
unless
the
Company
would
first
give
Security
by
three
sufficient
Persons
in
the
Sum
of
30000l
.
(
being
more
then
three
times
the
Sum
reported
due
)
to
abide
the
Order
o●
Court
upon
Hearing
the
Cause
.
That
the
Appellants
being
thus
denied
the
liberty
of
making
their
just
Defence
;
put
in
exceptions
to
the
Deputy
Remembrancer's
Report
,
being
thereby
(
without
any
sufficient
Proof
)
charged
with
9000l
.
for
Prize
Goods
as
brought
home
in
the
said
two
Ships
:
but
the
Exceptions
were
over-ruled
as
to
all
,
save
179
Bales
of
Goods
which
were
sent
to
a
Tryal
at
Law
,
and
by
a
Jury
of
Knights
and
Gentlemen
at
the
Exchequer
Bar
,
a
Verdict
was
found
that
they
were
not
Prize
Goods
,
tho'
Jeremiah
Bonneale
,
(
who
was
the
only
positive
Witness
against
the
Appellants
on
which
the
Report
was
founded
)
by
his
Affidavit
and
Depositions
taken
in
the
Cause
,
did
swear
,
That
the
1●9
Bales
which
were
to
to
〈…〉
by
the
Verdict
n●t
to
be
Prize
Goods
,
were
Prize
Goods
as
well
as
the
rest
,
and
so
his
Testimony
was
contradicted
by
the
Verdict
as
to
the
1●9
〈◊〉
;
and
would
have
been
so
likewise
as
to
the
rest
of
the
Goods
,
had
the
Appellants
been
allowed
a
Commission
as
of
Right
they
ought
.
After
which
Tryal
the
said
Cause
came
to
Hearing
the
29th
.
of
November
1692.
And
a
Decree
pass'd
against
the
Appellants
for
Payment
to
their
Majesties
7940l
.
for
the
Tenths
of
Prize
Goods
come
to
their
hands
in
the
said
two
Ships
,
of
all
which
they
could
have
discharged
themselves
,
had
they
been
allowed
a
Commission
as
they
ought
to
have
been
.
Against
which
Decree
,
and
the
denying
of
a
Commission
to
the
Appellants
for
Examination
of
their
Witnesses
,
an
Appeal
is
brought
,
and
the
Appellants
humbly
pray
that
the
Decree
may
be
reversed
for
these
Reasons
.
-
FIRST
,
For
that
the
Decree
was
founded
on
the
Testimony
of
a
single
Witness
,
who
was
falsified
by
a
Verdict
at
Law
given
in
the
same
Court
where
the
Decree
was
made
,
and
before
the
same
Judges
;
and
that
in
time
,
before
the
Decree
was
pronounced
;
and
so
,
as
humbly
conceived
,
could
be
no
good
Ground
in
Equity
for
a
Decree
,
nor
ought
a
single
Witness
(
tho'
of
good
Credit
)
to
be
received
against
the
Defendants
Answer
,
that
being
contrary
to
the
constant
Practice
and
Rules
of
Equity
,
and
there
was
no
other
Witness
but
him
,
who
was
falsified
by
a
Verdict
at
Law
to
charge
the
Appellants
with
the
Sum
Decreed
.
-
SECONDLY
,
For
that
it
is
of
commmon
Right
,
and
the
constant
Justice
of
all
Courts
of
Equity
,
to
grant
Commissions
beyond
Sea
for
Examination
of
Witnesses
there
,
where
the
Cause
of
Action
ariseth
,
and
when
the
Circumstance
of
the
Case
requires
it
,
as
in
this
Case
it
was
manifestly
necessary
,
the
whole
Matter
of
the
Suit
arising
in
the
East-Indies
,
for
without
such
Commission
,
it
will
be
impossible
to
examine
the
Witnesses
in
Foreign
Parts
,
and
without
Proof
no
Man
can
defend
himself
;
and
if
the
Appellants
Witnesses
in
the
East-Indies
had
been
examined
,
there
would
have
been
no
colour
for
any
Decree
;
and
therefore
it
is
humbly
hoped
the
Decree
shall
be
Reversed
.