199
the reasons for their decision it is impossible to say on which of the grounds raised for the prisoner it was arrived at but the following circumstances seem to one to preclude its being drawn into a precedent to govern the present case.
1st Depardo the party accused was a prisoner of war and although he volunteered into the service of the East India Company it may be fairly argued that he did so under duress and to avoid the squalor carceres that he consequently did not voluntarily render himself amenable to English law in the same way the prisoner Lacrase has done by freely entering on board an English vessel in time of peace. Indeed it was contended for Depardo in argument that his contract with the East India Company was void, he as an alien enemy not being capable of making any valid contract with English Subject and that he consequently still retained his character of a prisoner of war and was therefore not subject to English Municipal Law. The Judges did not seem to favour this argument much but it is possible that it may have had some weight with them.
2ndly Depardo committed the offence on shore at Canton where he was clearly out of the Admiralty Jurisdiction whereas Lacrase stabbed Hopkins on board an English Ship in a foreign port where he would be clearly within it.
3rdly at the time of Depardo's trial doubts seem to have been entertained as to the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court over Bast...
DEX.
on.