Open main menu

Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/26

This page needs to be proofread.

so ·£nn•‘ruled and decreed in the l. 17Br. in makingthe application; and even whenthe Chancellor has made L/éd his final decree, the form of petition merely Rates that he has erred in confeience, as to the fa&s ; and the application is feldom re·· fufed. But though the requeltof Counfel lhould not, of itfelf, be deemed fullieient, the difcovery of new evidence fubfequcat to thealecreq, ought to he admitted,as a foundation forare·hear·»· ing. By this evidence it will appear, that other veliitls, though really Brit}, have been §tred` out hy the fame parties, under . the fame cover g and, of confeqnmnce, the inference will bc Hroug ‘ that the Re/'alutrim was sib Br·r1‘_i/lv property. _ Inqppolitlon to the rule it was obferved, that the rnoll per- _ jniciops confegu ces would enfue, if a new trial lhould be _ med upon etjery reguelf, and that the aymentof coils will not Ea fuflicient check; as the advantage of) having the property in hand more than compenfates that inconvenience. But in an- fwering the caufes afligned for a re-hearing, it was contended, that the Law of Chancery did not apply. In Chancery, the fuits being new, and the parties liable to furprizc, rc-hearings are frequently allowed 5 but in the Houfe of Lords a re-hearing is never allowed. Nor is it confonant with the praélice of 'this Court; though if the Court was itfelf diifatislicd with the prin- ciples of the decree, that would undoubtedly be a fatisfaétory reafon for the meafure. J.Belides, on a re-hearing in Chancery, ‘ no new evidence can be introduced; and the petition for a re- hearing mult {tate the reafons at large. 2. Prac. Cb. 4go. Eid. ro. _ But this application is in the nature of a Bill of re- view, and mult, confequently, llate new Bvidencc. Eid. 4o. 452. 3 Black. Com. 451. 3 .41%.35. 3P. Wm. 3yr. 372. Nor is the new evidence w,hic.i1 is a5gned as another caufe for a re-hearinghadmillible silt ref :€ts another veflel; and the pa- pers fonndon board the Hzip berfelf mult be the ground of ac- quittal, or condemnation. ll: was Cours; :—As the original decree has not been car- ried into execution, we think it proper, under the peculiar cite curnllances of the prefent cafe, to allow at re-hearing. But this is not to be drawn into precedent ; nor is any point previ- . oully determined, to be brought again into litiiation, unlefs the (tate of thc fa€ts refpeéling it {hall be altered _y the new evi- dence The caufes were, accordingly, argued for feveral fucceiiive ` diy; ; and on the 24fb qflfwmary 1782, the following revilion- ary decree (altering the fu pcuded decree only as to a part of the `cargo) was delivered by WILLIAM Pace, and Camus Gius- tm, the preliding Commillioners. Bar urn Gourr. We have cpnlidered the new evidclrxcp w rc r