(seq. 27)

Judge of the Vice Admiralty Court by that [[Petition?]] they submitted themselves [[?]] again
& did an Act Inconsistent with their Appeal which is a presumption of it.

As to the share which the privateers are intitled to & in what manner the Division
is to be made is a point of more doubt. The Act of Parliament & his Majestys proclamation
have not provided for it
nor has it come Judicially before he Court of Admiralty # The
same Rule cannot comprehend both because the proportion is settled in regard
to ships in his Majestys pay but in regard to privateers is left to the agreement made
between the owners & Ships Company. There seems therefore some [?]
Discretionary power [in the?] Court according to the [?] of the case and that in the
present 1/4th to each of the privateers appears to be the most equitable division

J. Andrew

[Dr} Commons
[?]
14 Jany 1744

There is no doubt but that privateers are Intitled to share with the Kings Ships in prizes taken
by their mutual Assistance There are many Instances thereof in [?] war and some in the
present war. In joint captures the Law has left the allottment of the share of each ship to the
Discrection of the Judge who is to found his [?] upon the circumstances of each particular case
In the present case it is agreed that the two Privateers & the Kings Sloop were engaged with the
[Enemy?] But it seems to be allowed that the privateers had the greatest part in the action and
that the Argyl was aiding & assisting to the Capture only by his presence without engaging at all
he had therefore the least merit & share in the [service?] But if the prizes were to be Distributed
according to the number of men he wod have the greatest share of the reward which I cannot
think would be Just upon the whole I am of opinion the Judge at Barbardos has given a
proper and reasonable [?] And I am advise presenting the Appeal.

Geo. Lee
[Drs] Commons Novr. 29th 1745