And there were the auction expenses?--And the auction expenses.
Did you afterwards sell the vessel?--Yes.
To whom did you sell her?--I sold her to two parties who came together
to purchase her.
Do you know their names?--Captain Bernardos and Captain Jennings.
What was the day of the month?--That I cannot tell you exactly.
Was it in August 1840, about that time?--I could tell you; I think it
was in June.
Just tell me, if you can by any means?--I can tell you by the day I
received the money, which was the same day I sold her.
Have you any memorandum made by yourself?--No, by my clerk, of the
number of the notes.
Did you see the entry the day it was made?--Yes.
Mr. _Kelly_. That is not in your own handwriting; when was it made?--The
same day as the letter was posted.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. What was the day?--It was sold in September last.
Did you keep a memorandum of the numbers of the notes you
received?--Yes, that is the only memorandum that was kept.
Tell me the numbers of the notes?--The numbers, as they are entered
here, are single 100_l._ notes, J. B., March the 9th, 1840; J. B.,
48,204; J. B., 47,194, same date, 100_l._; J. B., 46,243, 9th March,
1840, 100_l._; J. B., 41,674, same date, 100_l._; J. G., 36,020, May 25,
1840, 100_l._; J. G., 38,288, May the 9th, 1840, 100_l._; then there was
a note for 50_l._, No. 1,364, 8th August, 1840; making a total of
650_l._
Were there any papers or documents you received or delivered in respect
of the vessel?--I received no documents; she was sold by public auction.
Did you give any?--No, I only gave an order to the ship-keeper to
deliver her up.
Have you got that letter?--No, it was not a business transaction, it was
merely for a friend.
Had you the bill of lading, or any thing?--No.
Cross-examined by Mr. _Kelly_.
Who originally sold her?--She was advertised to be sold by auction, at
the Exchange Rooms, by Mr. Robinson.
Do you know who he was?--An auctioneer at Portsmouth.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. To whom did you pay the money for your
purchase?--The money was originally paid by a cheque from the party by
whom she was purchased, who attended the sale himself to bid for her;
that cheque by some accident was not presented at the place where it
ought to be; it came back to me and I paid it myself.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. You paid the auctioneer?--I paid the bankers myself
finding there was a mistake, and it was immediately repaid to me.
That cheque was given to somebody?--To the auctioneer; not that cheque
of mine, but the cheque of the party who purchased her.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I am now going to offer in evidence the papers of
the vessel, the cockets that were on board the vessel. I am going to
call for those, as my learned friend wishes me to call for one thing at
a time.
Mr. _John Brown_ called again. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_.
Have you the cockets there?--Yes, I have.
There are seven of them; No. 5 is the document we want. (_The Witness
produced the same._)
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. These are the cockets; they are not objected to;
they are in page 30 of the book.
Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_ (_to_ Captain _Hill_). Were those found on board
the vessel, and delivered to you?--Yes.
They were delivered to you by Captain Jennings?--Yes.
Mr. _Kelly_. Do you propose to read all these documents?
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. No. There is one entry made of plate-glass, upon
which a drawback is to be obtained by the person who ships it; all the
rest are in the same form. Now, No. 7. (_Mr. Brown hands that in._) Now,
the bill of lading: hand that to Captain Hill.
Mr. _Kelly_. There is no occasion to trouble Captain Hill. I do not know
how it is important, but I do not see how it is admissible; it is not in
his handwriting, nor contains his name; it is found in the vessel early
in 1841, many months after he sails. How is that evidence against the
prisoner? The charge is, that the prisoner at the bar did equip and use
the vessel for the purposes of the slave trade; that the prisoner at the
bar shipped goods on board the vessel for the purposes of the slave
trade. I need not refer to the letters in evidence or any other
document; but here is a document purporting to be a bill of lading, not
bearing the signature of the prisoner or any of the firm, nor seen by
any of them, but found many months afterwards on board the vessel: how
can that be evidence against him? Is that the only document found? There
may be treasonable papers found there, and how can they be evidence
against Mr. Zulueta, unless it is proved it was done by his orders.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. I suppose the object of the evidence is to show
that there was no mention in these papers of Mr. Zulueta having any
thing to do with it?
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I ought to say there is the name of Zulueta and
Co., the Spanish house at Cadiz.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. There is nothing found on board the vessel to
indicate any concern that the Zuluetas in London had in freighting the
ship or shipping the goods. I suppose it must be taken for granted,
unless it is shown on the part of the prisoner that Mr. Zulueta’s name
was in the document, that it was not his.
Mr. _Kelly_. The prosecutor is to make out his case that the prisoner at
the bar equipped the vessel for the slave trade.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Employed it for that purpose.
Mr. Justice _Maule_ (_to_ Captain _Hill_.) Did you find any document
mentioning the house of Zulueta in London?--None, but the papers before
the Court.
And none of those mentioned any house in London?--The letter read is the
only one.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. We now produce certain letters found in the ship,
not the ship’s papers. There is one in which the name was cut out, the
letter authorising Captain Jennings to purchase the vessel; except that
in, there is nothing to show they had any interest, or that they shipped
the goods.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. These are all the papers found on board?
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Now we are going to offer certain other letters.
Mr. Justice _Maule_ (_to_ Captain _Hill_.) Are these all the papers you
could get?--Yes, these are all I could get.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I am going to offer the letters objected to in my
address; we are going to show letters giving directions.
Mr. _Kelly_. My learned friend should not state the contents of the
letters.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I have stated nothing injurious to the prisoner,
only enough to call the attention of the Judges to them. I am going to
prove the handwriting of them.
Mr. _Kelly_. The evidence at present is, that Captain Hill found on
board the vessel, or that the master delivered to him, certain papers,
those you now produce; you say nothing about the contents, but you are
going to prove the handwriting?
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Yes.
(_Mr. Brown produced certain other papers, which were handed in._)
Mr. _Brown_. That packet contains nine enclosures.
Mr. _Sebastian Gonzalez Martinez_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant
_Talfourd_.
Do you know Pedro de Martinez, of Cadiz?--No.
Have you had any correspondence with him?--Never.
You are not acquainted with his writing?--Not at all.
Where have you lived; at Hampstead?--Yes, at Hampstead.
What is the name of your house at Hampstead; has it a name?--Yes, it
has.
What is it?--Bellasise Park.
Cross-examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.
Do you know the gentleman in this dock?--Yes, I do; I have known him
since he was a child.
What character has he borne in this city for integrity and good
conduct?--Most excellent; he has been a good son, a good father, and a
good husband, and a most honourable merchant.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I thought we should have been able to prove the
handwriting. These letters are addressed to the correspondent to whom
the vessel was consigned, giving directions in respect of the vessel,
and there are instructions as to what is to be done with the cargo. Your
Lordships will probably look at them; there is no actual signature.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. I have heard enough of them.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. They are in Spanish; there is no name signed to
them at all; there is the letter M, and there are directions in respect
of the cargo which is on board. Now I apprehend we have two things to
prove, and to give in evidence to your Lordships and to the Jury; the
one is, what was the object of the vessel, what was to be done with her
cargo, what was the object of her freight? There is the captain found on
board, who delivers up the ship’s papers, and among others the
directions to the consignees as to what is to be done with the cargo,
and general instructions.
Mr. _Kelly_. I have three times heard my learned friend make an
assertion to your Lordship, which I beg leave to deny. I am certain my
learned friend is speaking under instructions false in themselves. He
has never read the letters; I have. They have been before another Court
in a proceeding to which this gentleman was no party, and I undertake to
say they do not refer to the disposal of this cargo or this vessel in
any way; and it is cruel in the extreme that such statements should be
made in the hearing of the Jury, which they will never forget; and that
those statements will remain when your Lordship rejects them, as you
will do. I have read them all, from the beginning to the end; they were
before the Privy Council, and I say they do not relate to it.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I have read them from the beginning to the end; I
do not put my judgment against Mr. Kelly’s; but he asserts that they do
not, and I assert that they do: whatever is in these letters I have
carefully abstained from stating it in any way which shall injure the
prisoner at the bar.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. Mr. Serjeant Bompas does not state that they
contain any direction to employ the goods in slave trading.
Mr. _Kelly_. I deny that they contain any direction to employ the goods
in any way.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. It is rather favourable to the voyage that there
should be a document so produceable and regular, as instructions to the
persons interested in the cargo: where there was nothing to conceal,
persons would have those instructions.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. When we come to matters of assertion, I yield to
my learned friend; but when we come to the examination of documents, and
to decide whether they are evidence, then we look at the evidence. It is
absolutely necessary, if they are directions, that your Lordships should
look at them to ascertain whether they are so or not, and in that way I
should not have the slightest objection to submit them to the Court:
they are at page 7; and there is one document I will call your attention
to, in which there is a distinct direction as to what is to be done with
the cargo on board; as far as that is necessary these are directions,
or, as your Lordship says, there are none.
(_A printed copy of the Letters was handed to their Lordships._)
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. If your Lordships look at the general direction,
you will find it in page 7, “I have to request,” down to the words “so
very precious.”
Mr. Justice _Maule_. Does that refer to any mention of the Augusta
before that?
Mr. _Kelly_. Not at all; it refers to the vessel Urraca.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. The vessel first in question was the Urraca, not
the Augusta.
(_Their Lordships referred to the printed Letter._)
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. If your Lordships will look at the bottom of page
38, you will see a paragraph beginning “From my preceding
communication.”
Mr. Justice _Wightman_. He dispatched that ship?
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Yes.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. Are there any other letters to the consignee
relating to this ship, unless these do?
Mr. _Kelly_. I hope your Lordships will not take that for granted upon
my learned friend’s statement: there are a great variety of documents,
of the existence of which the prosecutors are perfectly aware; they have
given no notice to produce them, and they would lay the matter open
before the Jury.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I hope your Lordships will not give the least
credit to these statements of Mr. Kelly; they deserve no credit.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. There are documents, Mr. Kelly says, which we shall
see in due time.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. There are papers here, and we wish every one to
be put in, no doubt. The form in which we put it is this: that if a
letter is directed to consignees giving directions, that is evidence of
what is to be done with the cargo, they are directions in respect of it;
and the question whether Captain Jennings was the owner of this vessel,
or whether it was used as a cover under his directions, is a question
for the Jury. That Messrs. Zulueta, on behalf apparently of Martinez,
entered into a contract of charter-party with him there is no doubt,
according to the statement and admissions in this examination; and they
also ship these goods on board the ship of Captain Jennings: they were
shipped for the consignee; they were the agents. What was to be done
with those goods? The only way that can be ascertained, is by the actual
order to the consignees in respect of them.
The second question will be how far Mr. Zulueta was implicated in it,
and that will be shown by the conduct pursued, and the concealment he
practised; but the question is, what was the object of it? What was to
be done? If we see he employs this vessel to accomplish a particular
object, we say it was for that purpose. My learned friend says, how can
you give in evidence any thing that took place after the vessel left
England? How can you say that it was employed for that purpose, except
by something done in England? Suppose I show that these goods were
ordered by an individual to be used for the purpose of the slave trade,
and suppose I can show they were so used, that is, after they were sent.
But I am to show by the conduct of Mr. Zulueta that that was the object.
They are two separate things; how am I to show that was the object? I
show the bill of lading by which they were consigned to certain
persons; I show a letter directing those persons how to apply them.
Suppose there is no signature to any one of these letters, does that
prevent their being given in evidence? You must expect there will be
concealment, if there is an illegal voyage; but if these are the orders
upon which they are to proceed, how is it to be said that that is not
the object of the voyage? I must show what was the object: how is it
possible to show that? It is only by showing the orders given in that
respect; there is no other way of showing that that was the purpose,
except showing something after the vessel left. My learned friend has
said many times, how can Mr. Zulueta be affected by any thing that took
place after the vessel left England. Suppose a vessel was sent from
England for the express purpose of receiving slaves, and did receive
slaves; if I can affect him, I must show that it was done afterwards; if
it was for slave transactions, I can only show by the directions and
orders given to the parties to whom they were consigned what was to be
done with them. They were shipped in the name of Captain Jennings by Mr.
Zulueta: but what is to be done? If Captain Jennings was the agent of
Messrs. Zulueta, the fact of ordering these things to be done would be
evidence against Mr. Zulueta. It would be for the Jury to say whether
Captain Jennings was employed, or was the real owner of the vessel;
whether the owner or the captain. If we could show written orders to
dispose of the goods, how could that be done but by putting in the
document? If I could show Captain Jennings’s coming to the Gallinas, and
stating he must apply these things in a particular way, can he turn
round and say I have no instructions? Yes, these are your instructions;
and no concealment in the case of a crime can prevent them being given
in evidence, because, in that case, the captain is safe in taking out
papers not giving general instructions as to the whole of the cargo: but
if there is concealment, if a party hides himself, and acts in another
name, and you find that vessel with certain documents on board giving
directions what is to be done with the cargo, is it to be said that
those documents are not receivable in evidence in respect of that cargo?
If it is so, it is not possible to give evidence against any one who
does not go to Africa to do it. It is nothing to show they sent out a
vessel with that object. First, I show that in fact the directions were
to send them for the purposes of the slave trade, and I show next that
it was so used. If you show it was not so used, if you cut off the
latter part, if you say the directions were on board to be so used, I
submit it is evidence when the captain gives up the directions to the
consignees as to how they are to treat these goods; and therefore, my
Lord, I say it is no answer to say they are not signed. If I do not show
by Mr. Zulueta’s conduct that he had some guilty knowledge--
Mr. _Kelly_. I do not take the objection that they are not signed.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I do not show that they are signed by Mr.
Zulueta, which he says is necessary: in point of fact, I say it is
immaterial, because, if a person whom Mr. Zulueta never heard of, had
given directions in respect of these goods, that they were to be used
for the purpose of slave dealing, he having shipped them, the only
question is, did he ship them for that purpose? How do you show that?
By his conduct. That he did employ the vessel is proved: he chartered
it, and that is the only purpose. I submit that the only way is to show
the directions at the time which they were to receive; I submit that the
directions are evidence; and the last question is, whether Mr. Zulueta
did it with that object.
Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. In this prosecution there are two propositions
which the prosecutors are bound to establish; the first is, that this
vessel was employed for an illegal purpose; and, secondly, that Zulueta
was conscious of it at the time he entered into this contract. Those two
propositions are separate and distinct. It is true you cannot establish
the second without the first; but it does not follow that you cannot
give all the evidence to establish the first without interfering with
the second. You must establish the felony, before you show the receipt
of the goods. There the object and purpose for which the vessel was
fitted out are part of the transaction, and must be shown by legitimate
means. It is said by my learned friend, that if Mr. Zulueta was guilty
of the offence, he was guilty of it at the time he dispatched the vessel
from this country; but it does not follow that all the evidence is to be
confined to this country. No one can suppose that, if a vessel is fitted
up with these leagers and other fittings, it was not intended to be used
on deck in some other than legitimate trade; and, whether she was driven
in by stress of weather or not, if she was turned into a slave trader,
is it to be said that instructions what was to be done with her, whether
they consisted in writing, in words, or acts, are not evidence? I grant
it does not establish the guilt of the prisoner, but it is a step to it;
and if we are excluded showing the nature of the directions to the
consignee of the vessel, who must be known to the prisoner, we are
prevented from showing any painting or any alteration done after the
ship left this country. They are not evidence as the history of any
other slaving transaction, or any other history or confession; they are
not for that purpose evidence against the prisoner; but they are
evidence against the prisoner in so far as they are acts done in respect
of the dispatch of the cargo, and the employment of the vessel.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. I do not think it is necessary to trouble Mr.
Kelly. It seems to me that Mr. Serjeant Talfourd is quite right in
saying there are two things to be proved: one, the body of the offence,
the slave trading, or the intention to do it, the taking the voyage; and
the other is the participation and knowledge of the prisoner in it; and
I think it quite true, that it might well be that the first matter might
be established, and established completely, quite consistently with the
innocence of the prisoner, and yet, notwithstanding, that these papers
might be admissible in evidence upon this trial. There is no rule that
requires, that in order that a matter may be given in evidence upon a
trial between parties, that the evidence should be such as in itself is
sufficient to prove the case; if so, all other evidence would be
excluded. I admit it is quite competent to the prosecutor to prove,
though he has not fixed the knowledge of the prisoner, any fact
constituting any suspicion, or a plausibility. I think he might do that:
but here the objection is not so much to the subject of proof, slave
trading, as the medium of proof--the document seeking to establish
it--this being a document not at all traced to the prisoner, nor any
body in privity with him; it is merely found on board the vessel, and is
not a document that can be read against him. It is not a statement
accompanying any act done, it is found on board the vessel, found by
some one who may be an agent or accomplice of the prisoner, and handed
to Captain Hill. I think the mere circumstance of handing it to Captain
Hill does not remove the objection of want of privity between the
prisoner and the paper: I think it cannot be given in evidence. If the
vessel sailed without any instructions, no doubt it is a very strong
circumstance against the honesty and legal purpose of the voyage: if she
is in a latitude, where slave trading is carried on, it affords an
observation against the legality of the voyage.
Mr. Justice _Wightman_. I am of the same opinion: I think the document
is not admissible, for the reasons stated by my brother Maule.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_ not objecting, the prisoner was admitted to bail,
and left the dock.
[_Adjourned._
SECOND DAY.
SATURDAY, 28TH OCTOBER, 1843.
The names of the Jury were called over.--All present.
The Defendant took his place within the Bar.
The Witnesses on both sides, except those to character, were directed
to withdraw.
(_Joseph Bankes was called, but was not in attendance._)
_William Thomas Onion_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_.
Do you reside at Portsmouth?--I do.
Did you know a vessel called first the Gollupchik, afterwards the
Augusta?--I did.
Did you know a Captain Jennings?--I did.
Did you know his mate also?--Mr. Mottley.
In consequence of your knowing one or both of them, were you
occasionally on board the vessel?--I was on board sometimes, almost the
whole time.
Were you ever applied to to sail in the vessel?--Not directly.
Was any application made to you to join the vessel going any where?--An
observation was made, but not a direct application.
You say you were on board; did you see the captain when he received any
letters?--Yes; I generally saw him receive letters.
What is your occupation at Portsmouth?--A teacher of navigation.
Were you employed to teach anybody in that vessel?--I was giving Mr.
Mottley instructions.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. What is the name of the gentleman?
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Motley: M-o-t-l-e-y.--No; M-o-t-t-l-e-y.
You say you saw the captain receive letters; did you see him do any
thing with any part of the letters?--He generally used to cut the name
out.
Mr. _Kelly_. I must object to this. What can we have to do with all
this? Here is a witness, of whom we never heard till to-day, to speak to
what Captain Jennings has done with certain letters he received. How can
that be made evidence against Mr. Zulueta, the prisoner at the bar? Any
thing, which Mr. Zulueta authorised the captain to do, which he
directed, or which he sanctioned after it was done, is evidence against
him; but on what conceivable principle are the minds of the Jury to be
perplexed and overloaded by circumstances taking place, which occurred
in his absence, over which he had no control, and of which he had no
knowledge till he hears it three years and a half afterwards?
Mr. Justice _Maule_. I do not know, at present, how it can be made
evidence.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I do not know how it can be said that nothing is
evidence against a person, unless he is present at the time. I conceive
this is evidence on the same ground, as if the captain bought slaves
with money sent by Mr. Zulueta for the express purpose of buying slaves,
it would be evidence against him. The question is, whether from Mr.
Zulueta’s conduct, it is not evident that he sent this vessel for slave
trading; that must appear from all the facts: but here we have the
confirmation, that there is one of Mr. Zulueta’s letters actually found
on board the vessel with the name cut out. We shall prove also another
letter, which the captain received. There is all that practice of
secrecy, which shows at the time the vessel had been purchased by Mr.
Zulueta, when Mr. Jennings was acting as captain of that vessel. We are
to show the nature of the transactions of that vessel, and of the
prisoner. One thing is, that there was a universal concealment.
Supposing we could distinctly show that Jennings was going to the
Gallinas for the purpose of dealing in slaves, then we might show, by
Mr. Zulueta’s conduct, that he knew that was the object of the voyage;
but in order to show what was the intention, we must show what passed;
and if we cannot show the conduct of the captain on board that vessel,
at the time he is the captain of that vessel, which we say there is
evidence that Mr. Zulueta purchased; if we cannot account for that
letter which is produced, in Mr. Zulueta’s handwriting, with the name
cut out, and give evidence when it was cut out, and how it was cut out,
it appears to me excluding us from a means of giving evidence of the
facts. If this be not evidence, it is utterly impossible to prove any
combination for the purpose of dealing in slaves, unless the prisoner
charged says so himself, or is present when they say it. If they employ
agents, and he is only one of the parties, I must show the acts of the
parties: but here is a letter from on board the vessel, with the name
cut out. I am showing that this person received letters while he was at
Portsmouth from Zulueta, and that he cut out the name of the person
writing those letters. I submit to your Lordship that that is evidence.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. We think the evidence is not admissible. It is very
true, that you might prove slave trading by the captain of the vessel,
although you did not show the prisoner to have been present at the time;
but it does not follow that every thing which tends to show slave
trading, and which would be admissible against the captain of the
vessel, would be admissible against Zulueta. I do not think that follows
with respect to the evidence now offered. In my opinion it does not
necessarily tend to prove slave trading; it amounts to an admission on
the part of the captain, that the letter he had received was from a
correspondent, whom he desired to conceal; it amounts therefore to no
more, if so much, as if Captain Jennings had said to this witness--This
is a letter from a person from whom I am desirous of concealing that I
have received letters. I think this is not evidence.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. You say you were on board that vessel frequently,
giving instructions to Mottley, and occasionally with the captain; did
you see any thing on board that vessel in a bag at any time?--I saw some
deck-screws; I found them.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. You say you saw them; do you mean that you found
many, or only a few?--It was one bundle, wrapped up in canvas.
A bundle of deck-screws, wrapped up in canvas?--Yes.
How many?--About twenty, or two-and-twenty.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Will you explain what you mean by
deck-screws?--Screws that are formed for placing a temporary deck for
slaves, to go through the deck, and fasten to a beam to ship a deck.
To screw it on, and then take out the screws and move the deck?--Yes.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. Whereabouts did you find these?
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Where did you find them?--In a secret place at
the back of the cupboard.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. The cupboard; in what place?--In the cabin of the
ship.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. How came you to be looking there?--A boy, in
putting the soup-tureen into the cupboard, happened to put it too far,
and the tureen fell over; he told me--
Mr. _Kelly_. Tell us what you saw, not what he told you?--Consequently I
got over and recovered the tureen, and I said, “Here is a store--”
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Never mind what you said, but what you saw: you
got up, and recovered the tureen?--Yes; and in searching about, I found
these.
Did you do anything with them, or leave them there?--I put them on the
table, and Mr. Mottley opened them.
What was done with them then?--They were put into a cabin abaft by the
boy.
About what time was this, as near as you can tell?--About the middle of
September, 1840.
Did you see any thing else in the cabin at all?--I have seen some
shackles amongst the ballast.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. How many?--Oh, I do not know; it was mixed with the
ballast, and one thing and another.
Have you been at sea yourself?--Some years.
How long have you left the sea?--About four years.
Did you see any false tops, any covers for the tops of cabins?--False
tops, yes; all the bed places were false tops.
Just tell us what you mean by false tops?--A vacancy between the deck
and the lining.
Was there any opening to them?--Yes.
Just describe it?--About four inches I suppose, so as to enable any
thing to be stowed away there.
When it was stowed away, was it possible to be seen to be stowed away,
or concealed?--No; it was concealed.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. All the bed places you say were with false
tops?--What they call lined, between the deck and the lining, leaves a
vacancy.
Mr Serjeant _Bompas_. Was there any thing to open or shut? Will you
describe how anything could be put in?--A piece of, I do not know what
you call it, a piece of furniture came over the facing.
Do you know what is the moulding?--A kind of moulding, and there was
this vacancy.
To any body who came into that cabin and saw that, was that
perceivable?--Not at all.
Cross-examined by Mr. _Kelly_.
What are you now by business or trade?--A teacher of navigation.
Were these articles, of which you have spoken, articles calculated for
the carrying on the slave trade?--I presume so.
Will you allow me to ask in what way you have acquired your knowledge of
what is fit for the slave trade, and what is not?--A representation of
Mr. Mottley himself, who was on the slave trade on the coast for years.
It was by the representation of Mottley, who was on the coast for years,
you acquired this knowledge?--Yes, that was the way.
That leads you to suppose that these were calculated for the use of the
slave trade?--Yes.
Did you know that the Gollupchik had been sent to England to be sold by
reason of its having been fitted up for the slave trade?--I heard so.
Was it not perfectly notorious through Portsmouth?--I believe she was
not condemned, but it was said so.
You are a teacher of navigation; do you know whether before a vessel
clears out from a British port for the coast of Africa, she is not
examined by a Custom-house officer, to see whether there are any
articles used for the slave trade?--I believe she is.
These articles you saw were at Portsmouth, before the vessel went to
Liverpool, where she received her cargo?--Yes.
Do you live at Portsmouth?--I do.
_Joseph Bankes_, the elder, sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_.
Do you live at Portsmouth?--Yes.
What business do you there carry on?--A cooper.
Do you remember the Gollupchik being at Portsmouth in the year
1840?--Very well.
While she was there did you go on board her?--Yes.
Were you employed to do any thing on board that vessel with the water
casks?--Yes.
The leagers?--Yes; large casks for leagers; double leagers.
About what size were the casks?--There were different sizes; but those
casks we are now speaking about would contain nearly a thousand gallons
each.
How many were there?--About a dozen.
Were they entire on board when you first went on board the vessel?--Yes.
Where were they?--They were on one side the kelson, full of water.
Who was in command of the vessel at that time?--A person of the name of
Mottley, apparently to me assumed the command.
Did you see Jennings there?--Yes.
Do you know a man called Bernardos?--No, I do not.
Did you receive any directions, I do not ask what they were, to do any
thing with the casks?--
Mr. _Kelly_. I do not understand here, how this is evidence against Mr.
Zulueta. The cause has lasted quite long enough, without our having all
the directions given by all persons.
Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. My question was simply: Did you receive any
directions from any person? I put that, and was putting it in the most
unexceptionable manner.
Mr. _Kelly_. I will not object; go on.
--I received directions at my own shop, from a person calling himself
Mr. Jennings.
Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did you, in consequence of any directions you
received, go on board the vessel?--He took me on board the vessel the
same day, in the shipwright’s boat.
In pursuance of any directions you received, did you do any thing?--I
numbered each cask, beginning at 1, 2, 3, and completing each.
Each stave?--Yes; and then took the heads off the staves, put them on
the inside of the staves, put them up together, and formed them into
stacks.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. When you went on board, you found some staves and
heads of casks?--I found the casks.
Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. He found the casks, and took them to pieces.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. You found the casks in the state of casks?--Yes,
they were stowed in the hold of the vessel, full of water.
How many casks?--I think of the larger kind there were about twelve.
Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. About how many smaller ones?--I should say
there were about fifty of the smaller kind.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. What did you do with the large casks?--Razed the
staves of the large casks. I numbered each stave, stave by stave, till I
had completed the circle of thirty or forty staves.
Did you mark them with chalk, or what?--I razed them with a proper
razing iron.
Razing is scratching a mark?--Yes.
What did you do with them?--Took the hoops from them and put them
together, and put them in close packs as we do sugar-casks.
You emptied the water?--Yes, emptied the water and took the casks to
pieces.
You put the parts of the casks together as correctly as you could, to
enable them to be put together again?--Yes.
Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Where did you leave them?--I left them stowed
in the ballast, after the ballast had been taken out and limbers cleared
out of the bottom of the vessel and stowed them on the top of the
ballast in packs.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. Each cask in a pack?--Yes, in a separate pack.
Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. Did you do any thing with the smaller
ones?--Yes, some of them, and others I repaired for water for the voyage
for the present crew.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. You did the same with some of the smaller ones, and
repaired others for water for the crew?--Yes, just so.
Mr. Serjeant _Talfourd_. How long did it take you to do this?--About
three weeks; from the 8th of September to the 19th we were positively
engaged entirely in that work.
Did you see any thing else that attracted your attention, while you were
engaged on board the vessel?--Yes.
What was it?--In two of the smaller casks, which we came to in the tier,
our attention was attracted by a noise in the cask; it proved to be a
quantity of what we call shackles when I was in the West India trade: we
did not count them, but there might be from one to two hundred pair.
They were in the cask?--Yes.
Can you tell how many there were?--We did not count them, but I should
consider from the weight and height of the cask, there were nearly two
hundred pair.
Was any thing done with those while you were there?--Not that I saw.
Then they were left in the place where you found them?--Yes, they had
been in the vessel before.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. What did you do with that cask?--We restowed it
again.
Did you take that cask to pieces?--No.
How could you see the shackles?--Because we took the head out.
Did you put the head in again, or leave it so?--I left it so; but I
believe my son did the remainder.
You do not know whether it was done or not?--No.
Cross-examined by Mr. _Clarkson_.
This was in September, between the 8th and 19th; you were eleven days
about this?--That was the time that we were specially engaged on the
large casks.
Was it necessary to hammer them to separate them?--Of course, we took
all the hoops off.
That makes a good deal of noise?--Sometimes it does.
Had you any person to help you?--I had my own son, and the ship’s crew
at times, at any time I wanted to get the large casks out of the hold.
How long was this after the vessel had been sold, and these casks in
her, by public auction, as a condemned slaver?--I did not know she had
been sold; I heard of it.
When did you hear of it?--Some time before, in August, I heard it.
Did you go to the sale?--No.
Do you recollect the vessel leaving Portsmouth?--Yes; that was two or
three days after.
She left in ballast for Liverpool; did she not?--They said she was going
to Liverpool.
Perhaps there was a doubt about that; did any persons come on board her
to see her?--I did not see any persons particular; there were comers and
goers, such as persons who do come on board to vessels, such as
watermen, and men coming on board wanting to go out as men in the
vessel.
Any body else that you remember?--Not that I know of.
Just describe: the hold of the vessel had been fitted with these large
leagers which you speak of?--Yes.
Those you took down, where did you put them?--We stowed them on the top
of the ballast, in the wings, any where, where there appeared to be
room.
What was the ballast of the vessel?--Iron ballast.
Where do you say you saw the shackles, which you assume to be a hundred
or two hundred in number?--On the starboard side.
That is where you left them?--Yes.
Did they form part of the vessel’s ballast?--I should say not.
What was the ballast?--The ballast was pigs of iron, such as are used on
such occasions.
Have the kindness to tell me, whether or not you left those shackles on
the top of the ballast?--I left them in the hold, on the starboard side.
On the top of the ballast?--Yes.
Were there any persons on board the vessel at the time you went
away?--Yes, the ship’s company.
Any body else?--Not that I know of, except two shipwrights.
Were they two Portsmouth shipwrights?--I believe they were.
What were their names?--Case the elder, and Case the younger.
Are they here to-day?--No, they are not.
Had they been working on board the vessel?--Previous to me, and after I
left her also.
Do you recollect the names of any other persons who bad been working on
board her?--No, I know there were two others; but I do not know their
names.
What were they?--Scrapers, and caulkers, and so on.
Portsmouth men?--I believe so.
Who called upon you to come here and be a witness?--The King’s
solicitor, Mr. Greetham.
When?--Last Thursday.
Was that the first time you ever heard of being called here?--Oh, dear
no; I had heard of it being talked about before.
Was that the first time you were called upon to attend?--Yes, positively
to attend.
Did you communicate to Mr. Greetham that there were shipwrights, whose
names you knew, working on the vessel, both before you were on board and
afterwards?--No, I never mentioned it to any person.
You were never taken before any magistrate on this subject, were
you?--No.
So that the party accused had no opportunity of knowing that you, or any
person who comes with you, were about to attend?--No.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. I do not think it is convenient to put speeches,
containing inferences to be derived from the evidence: it was the old
practice, I am well aware, when speeches could not be made, and a very
fair one then.
Mr. _Clarkson_. You have stated to the Jury what you saw of the vessel
when she was at Portsmouth; can you give any account of what was on
board her when she was at Liverpool, and whether there was any thing of
the nature you have described?--No, for I never went to Liverpool.
_Joseph Bankes_, junior, sworn. Examined by Mr. _Payne_.
Are you the son of the last witness?--Yes.
Did you assist your father at Portsmouth on board the Augusta?--Yes.
Mr. _Kelly_. Is it only to confirm the other witness? I do not dispute
that.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. I thought the intention of the cross-examination
was to break in upon that witness.
Mr. _Kelly_. Certainly not; you misunderstood it, then.
Mr. _Clarkson_. You may stand down, Sir.
_Henry George Moon_ sworn. Examined by Mr. _Payne_.
Are you clerk to Mr. Vandenburg, the Russian consul at Portsmouth?--I am
clerk to him, but he is not the Russian consul.
Do you remember the arrival of the Gollupchik at Portsmouth?--I do.
On the day of her arrival, did you go on board her?--I went on board
with Mr. Vandenburg.
Do you remember the day of her arrival?--I think it was the 10th of
June, 1839.
Who was the captain of the vessel at that time?--Thomas Bernardos
described himself as captain.
Did he act as captain?--The vessel was under the charge of an officer of
Her Majesty’s customs at the time; I forget the officer’s name.
Did you receive any letter from Bernardos to put into the post?--I took
a letter on shore, addressed to Messrs. Zulueta & Co.
What did you do with it?--I put it into the post.
From whom did you get it?--From Captain Bernardos.
Mr. _Payne_. Here it is; “A Letter addressed by the said Thomas
Bernardos, addressed to Messrs. Zulueta; posted at Portsmouth, the 10th
day of June, 1839.” We call for that.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. Was that the same day you got the letter?--Yes, the
same day.
Cross-examined by Mr. _Kelly_.
You saw nothing of the vessel, I presume, when she sailed on the
voyage?--Her voyage out, do you mean?
Yes, when she sailed from Liverpool?--No, certainly not.
Mr. Justice _Maule_. Of course not.
Mr. _Kelly_. You know that ultimately this vessel was given up to the
Russian government?--Yes, I do.
_Thomas James Clark_ sworn. Examined by Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_.
How old are you?--Nineteen.
Are you a sailor?--Yes.
How long have you been a sailor?--Several years.
Did you sail on board the Augusta?--Yes.
Where did you enter on board?--At Portsmouth harbour.
Where did you enter for?--To go to Liverpool, at first.
At that time you entered only to go to Liverpool?--That was all.
Did you continue on board?--Yes.
You went from Liverpool in the vessel?--Yes.
Where were the sailors hired generally, at Liverpool or Portsmouth?--At
Portsmouth some were hired.
And afterwards went on with the vessel, as you did?--Yes.
How many men were on board about, I do not wish to know exactly, when
you sailed from Liverpool?--About twenty-one or twenty-two.
What was your occupation on board the ship?--I was shipped as a boy, a
cabin-boy.
Had you any thing to do with the loading of the vessel, or not?--I was
acting as a cabin-boy.
You had nothing to do with the loading of the vessel?--No.
Do you remember any storm arising after you had left?--Yes; after we
left Liverpool we had a very heavy gale of wind, which lasted some time.
How shortly was that after you sailed?--I do not know; it might have
been several days.
Do you remember about how far you were from Cork or Falmouth?--Not a
very great distance.
Do you remember whether the wind was fair for going to Cork or
Falmouth?--Yes; it was a fair wind back, if the skipper had been
disposed to run back.
Did anything take place in the ship about going back?--Yes, there was a
great disturbance with the crew; they said the vessel was not safe to go
to where the skipper sailed to.
Where was she going to?--The coast of Africa: he said he would not go
back, that he should lose his crew if he put back.
Mr. _Kelly_. They said it was not safe to go to the coast of
Africa?--Yes.
Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_. Where did he sail for at last?--Sailed to Spain.
Was the wind fair for Spain, or not?--I do not know.
How many days were you before you got to Spain?--We were some time
before we got to Spain.
Can you tell whether it was a fortnight or three weeks, or between the
two?--I dare say it was a fortnight, or more.
You know the port in Spain; Cadiz, was not it?--Yes.
Were any of the men discharged at Cadiz?--Yes, the best part of them.
Do you know whether that was arranged before they went to Cadiz, at the
time of the storm?--It was all the captain’s misconduct.
What was?--Their leaving of us.
How long did you remain at Cadiz?--We remained there, I do not know
exactly the time, a month, or it might be two months.
Was any of the cargo discharged at Cadiz?--Yes; the best part of it was
moved out of her into small vessels.
There was some tobacco that was damaged, was there not?--Yes.
Did some part remain?--I do not know.
You acted as cabin-boy, we understand?--Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. _Kelly_.
You were on board this vessel at Portsmouth?--Yes.
Do you recollect a number of large water-casks, and a good many small
ones, that there were on board the vessel at Portsmouth?--Yes.
That Bankes and his son were working at for some time?--Yes.
You sailed with them on board from Portsmouth to Liverpool?--Yes.
Were not they sent out at Liverpool, and sold to Mr. Toplis, the agent,
who shipped the goods?--I know very well they were put on shore.
And the vessel sailed without them?--I am not very sure whether they
were put on board again.
Did you ever see them again?--No.
Were there not some iron bolts and screws, which had been on board the
vessel formerly, made up and thrown overboard while the vessel remained
at Portsmouth?--No, not to my recollection.
You do not know any thing of that kind?--No.
Re-examined by Mr. Serjeant _Bompas_.
Do you remember any thing about the quantity of water that was actually
on board; had they much or little water?--When they sailed from
Liverpool they had a great quantity of water.
Were the water-casks carried all the way or not?--We had several great
puncheons on deck at the time of the storm; we knocked one or two of the
heads in to help the vessel; one or two of the casks went overboard.
You had been at sea before?--Yes.