officer or owner of the ship in distress, with costs, in any court of record within this commonwealth. The commissioner or commissioners, and the commanding officer of any ship or vessel, and all others who shall assist in preserving any ship or other vessel in distress, or their cargoes, shall within forty days be paid a reasonable reward by the commander or owner of the ship or other vessel in distress, or by the merchant whose vessel or goods shall be saved; and in default thereof, the vessel or goods shall remain the custody of the commissioner or commissioners until all charges be paid, or security given for that purpose, to the satisfaction of the parties. And in case the parties shall disagree touching the monies deserved by the persons employed, it shall be lawful for the commander of such vessel saved, or the owner of the goods, or merchant interested, to choose one indifferent person, and also for the commissioner or commissioners to Dominate one other indifferent person, who shall adjust the quantum of the gratuities to be paid to the several persons, and such adjustments shall be binding on all parties, and to be recoverable with costs in any court of record within this commonwealth, by action on the case. If no person shall claim the goods saved, the commissioners, or one of them, shall take possession thereof, and cause a true description of the marks, numbers and kinds of such goods, to be advertised four weeks in the Virginia Gazette; and if no person shall claim the same within three months, public sale shall be made thereof (but if perishable, the goods shall be forthwith sold) and after charges deducted, the residue of the money, with an account of the whole, shall be transmitted to the treasurer, who shall keep an account of the same, for the benefit of the owner, who, upon proof of his property to the satisfaction of the auditor, shall upon his warrant receive the same. If any person, besides those empowered by the commissioners, or one of them, shall enter or endeavour to enter on board any vessel in distress, without the leave of the commanding officer, or in case any person shall molest them in saving the vessel or goods, or shall endeavour to hinder the saving such vessel or goods, or shall deface the marks of any such goods before they be taken down in a book by the commissioners, or one of them, every such person shall forfeit and pay the sum of ten pounds, to be recovered with costs, by information in any court of record within this commonwealth, and applied to the use of the owners of the vessel or goods, as the case may be ; and in case of failure to pay such forfeiture immediately, or giving security to pay the same within one month, he, she, or they, shall receive ten lashes on his, her, or their bare back, by order of such court. It shall be lawful for any commanding officer of a vessel in distress, or the commissioners, to repel by force any persons as shall, without consent as aforesaid, press on board any vessel in distress, and thereby molest them in preserving the vessel or goods; and in case any goods shall be found upon any person that were stolen or carried off from any vessel in distress, the person upon whom such goods be found shall, upon demand, deliver the same to the owner or commissioners, or to such other persons as shall be authorised by the commissioners or owner to receive such goods, or shall be liable to pay treble the value, to be recovered, with costs, in any court of record. If any person shall make, or be assisting in making a hole in any vessel in distress,

or steal any pump, materials, or goods, or shall be aiding in stealing such pump, materials, or goods, from any vessel, or shall wilfully do any thing tending to the immediate loss of such vessel, such person shall be guilty of felony, and suffer death without benefit of clergy; any commissioner, by fraud or wilful neglect, abusing the trust reposed in him, shall, upon conviction thereof, forfeit and pay treble damages to the party aggrieved, to be recovered, with costs, by action on the case, in any court of record, and shall thenceforth be incapable of acting as a commissioner. Any constable, or person summoned by him, refusing or neglecting to give the assistance required for the saving of any vessel, or her cargo, shall forfeit and pay twenty-five shillings, to be recovered before any justice, by the commissioners ordering the duty; and shall be moreover subject to the payment of the same damages, and to be recovered by the party aggrieved in the same manner, as in the case of a commissioner. The commissioners shall set up a copy of this act once in every year in each of the courthouses of the counties wherein they respectively reside.

II. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That the commissioners appointed by virtue of this act shall respectively give bond and security in the court of the county where he resides, in the sum of one thousand pounds, for the due and faithful execution of his office, and that it shall not be lawful for such commissioners, or any of them, to enter upon the duties of his office before he gives bond and security as aforesaid.

III. And be it further enacted, That where any vessel shall be stranded and totally lost, goods saved from the wreck shall be liable to entry and duties; but if any vessel be drove or cast on shore, and the damage sustained on the goods does not appear to exceed ten per centum, in the judgment of the commissioners, such goods shall be duly entered with the naval officer nearest the place where the case happened, according to law. [The power of reg lating commerce being vested in Congress, under the constitution of the United States, this section is no longer obligatory.]

Warrant against a constable, or others, for refusing assistance to a vessel in distress.

county, to wit.

day of

Wheeras information hath been given to me, by A W, a commissioner of wrecks for the county of that B C, a constable of the said county, who had been duly appointed for that purpose (or, E F, who had been summoned for that purpose by B C, a constable &c. as the case may be) did, on the last past, réfuse to give his assistance in saving a vessel and her cargo, then lying and being stranded on the sea shore, at the said county, near to These are therefore to require you to summon the said B C to appear before me, or some other justice of the peace for the county aforesaid, at to shew cause why the penalty imposed by law, in such cases, should not be imposed upon him for his said offence. Given under my hand, at the

on the

day of

county of year

To

RANTS.

this

to execute.

day of

in the

For the forms of the judgment and execution, see title WAR

ADDENDA.

(No. 1.)

fSINCE the foregoing work was put to press, the following important case has been finally decided in the superior court of chancery, for the Richmond district, and has been very obligingly furnished to the author by the chancellor, Creed Taylor, esq. As this case settles the principles upon which alimony may be decreed by a court of chancery, and discloses the practice to be pursued, where the defendant resists the authority of the court, an insertion of the whole case, from its commencement to its termination, it is presumed, will be acceptable.]

In the superior court of chancery, for the Richmond district, Fall Term,

1809.

ANN PURCELL vs. CHARLES PURCELL.

The bill in this case was filed to obtain alimony: it stated the marriage of the parties many years ago in New Jersey, in the United States; and that, without any impropriety of behaviour on her part, he had separated himself from her, without affording to her any support; that with all her endeavours she had often been without the necessaries of life; and his knowledge of the fact, instead of exciting even compassion, had caused only contempt and insult; that she had been frequently compelled to depend upon charity for subsistence, while he enjoyed a very considerable estate real and personal: wherefore she prayed for an adequate support, and for general relief.

In support of the allegations of the bill, there was the following proof:

1. William Richardson swore, that in 1786, he was living in Philadelphia, a near neighbour to some of Mrs. Purcell's connections, and occasionally visited them: that two of them, Mrs. Duncan and Mr. Henry were both persons of wealth, and high respectability; that he often heard them express their sorrow at the marriage of their niece and cousin Ann, to Charles Purcell, from apprehensions that he would not make a good husband; that in 1787 or 1788, the deponent was in Richmond, and among others, became a boarder at the house of Charles Purcell, and that he did believe the said Ann to be the lawful spouse of the said Charles Purcell.

2. Minton Collins swore, that he had been acquainted in the family of Charles Purcell about twenty years; that during the whole of his

acquaintance, Mrs. Purcell was treated by the said Charles Purcell very affectionately, and that he did always believe she was his lawful wife, as she was introduced as such to the acquaintance of many genteel families in this city.

3. Col Robert Gamble swore, that in the year 1790, before he had removed to Richmond, but while he and Mrs. Gamble were on a visit to that place, Mrs. Purcell was introduced to Mrs. Gamble, by Mrs. Sampson Matthews, and several other ladies; that the deponent soon afterwards removed to Richmond, and from the spring of 1791, until the summer of 1798, he and his family were neighbours to Charles Purcell, during which time their families reciprocally interchanged the accustomed civilities; that the plaintiff and defendant lived apparently as man and wife; that he had seen Mrs. Purcell at the city assemblies or balls, and that reputable families were in the habit of visiting Mr. and Mrs. Purcell at their own house; that the deponent was called upon by the said Charles, to unite with col. Lambert, to take his wife's privy examination, which they did; and that the said Charles always called the plaintiff Mrs. Purcell.

4. Col D. Lambert swore, that at the request of Mr. Charles Purcell, he, with col. Gamble, waited on the said Ann, at the house of the said Charles, on the eleventh of February, 172, and took her relinquishment of dower in some real estate conveyed by them; and that he always understood and believed that the said Ann was the wife of the said Charles Purcell, until, lately, it had been otherwise hinted by the said Charles Purcell.

5. There was the certificate of the clerk of the Husting's court of the city of Richmond, which stated, that the privy examination and relinquishment of dower, by the plaintiff, as stated by col. Gamble and col. Lambert, had been returned and duly recorded.

6. Besides, there were seventeen letters filed; three dated in 1794, 1798, and 1804, from their friends and connections in Ireland, one directed to Mr. Charles Purcell, jeweller, Richmond, and the other two to Mrs. Ann Purcell, to the care of Mr. Charles Purcell, making the most friendly inquiries after them and their children; two others of a most affectionate character, dated June and July, 1790, addressed by him to her, by the name of Mrs. Ann Purcell, while she was on a visit to her friends in Philadelphia; ten others of a like character, dated in 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802, and 1803, addressed by him to her by the same name, while she was in New Kent, at Mr. Andrews' in Norfolk, and in Baltimore; one other addressed to Mr. Charles Purcell, by Mr. Pauley, at whose house she had been accommodated, at the instance of the said Purcell, inclosing his bill, dated July, 1802; and one other from Charles Purcell, dated Richmond, July, 1804, in which he, for the first time, denounced her; but advised her to go to her brother's, and as he might find it convenient, he would give her some assistance.

Upon the bill, and the evidence aforesaid, the plaintiff, by council, at February term, 1808, moved for alimony pendente lite; when the

It was said at the bar, and not denied, that about this time he had formed a connection with another woman.

defendant, by council, asked leave to take the papers, in order to file his answer, which was granted.

The answer was filed the next day; it positively denied the marriage; and stated, that in April, 1786, he had joined a boating party with the plaintiff and several others, and had taken a trip to the Jerseys; and that soon afterwards she voluntarily embarked with him for Richmond, where he acknowledged they had passed as man and wife; that the relinquishment of dower was taken more to satisfy those interested in the purchase money, than for any other purpose; that he then denied the marriage; that in August, 1797, a young lady from Ireland was introduced to him, by the name of Ann Church, by Robert Means, as the niece of the plaintiff, whose expences the defendant paid; but, in a short time, Ann Church proved to be an illegitimate daughter of the plaintiff; that, notwithstanding this, he educated her, and, upon her marriage, gave her a house and lot in the city of Richmond; but then declared, that it was done for the respect which he once had for the said plaintiff; that in 1798, when his houses were consumed by fire, he was obliged to rent a house, to which he removed; but the plaintiff thought proper to accept of the invitation of her friends, and not to go with him; that, shortly after, she, of her own accord, without his knowledge, extended her visits to the borough of Norfolk, Lynchburg, Williamsburg, Baltimore, and other places, which he admitted she had a right to do; that in 1800 and 1804, she was in Richmond, and continued there for some time, without returning to him or asserting any demand against him; but still he did afford her some aid; but declared it was from charity, and not from any obligation that he was under; that if she had been his wife, which he denied, yet her departure from him, and her manner of living afterwards, would be a bar to any claim of dower, if he were to die, and should be of course to alimony; and that if they were married, she could say where the marriage ceremony was performed, the clergyman, and the persons or some of them who were present; and in support of this answer, he filed the following proof:

1. The affidavit of James Miller, in which he stated that he had understood, from the plaintiff, that she and the defendant were married in Philadelphia.

2. The affidavit of John Sedwich, in which he stated, that about December, 1807, he understood from her, that she was married, in Philadelphia, to Charles Purcell, but that she did not then wish to live with him, as his wife; but merely to recover of him as much money as she could; and at another time she said, they were married in the Swedish church in Philadelphia, and that he, the deponent, replied, then you can get a certificate of your marriage; but she said, that they kept no record of marriages, and that after they were married, he left her at her aunt's door, and that he had no other knowledge of her until they embarked for Richmond.

3. The affidavit of Robert Cowan, in which he stated, that in 1803 and 1804 a person by the name of Mrs. Purcell was at Norfolk, and lived with Jeremiah Andrews, while his wife was in England; and that people spoke freely of Mrs. Purcell on that account; and that as soon as Mrs. Andrews returned, Mrs. Purcell was discharged.