345
claim
Loring
was disallowed by Vice Consul
and Ellis then appealed to
the local Court, and succeeded in
obtaining
a
reversal
of
the Vice-Consul's
decision. A correspondence thereupon ensued, between
In Loring
had no
the
and
The
former
Count
Governor of Hong Kong : maintaining that the Hong Kong
jurisdiction in the matter, and intimating his intention of appealing to his Government. Copies of this
correspondence together with a
copy
of
a letter, which after consultation
with the Law Officers of the Crown,
I caused to be addressed to the
Colonial Office in this matter, are inclosed herewith for your information.
In support of
In Loring's view, you
Schenck referred me to Phillmore's International Law, Edition 1871, page
290, from which he argued that the
decision
of
the local Court was
contrary
to International Law, and that the
case was
one
which could only
be
dealt with by the United States Consular authority.
U.S. Courts recognise International Law
in cases
of
this kind, but that
British Courts do not; and he affirmed that the claim to jurisdiction of
Courts, in cases like the one under
discussion, is not justifiable.
Mr Schenck then cited the case of the "Bucephalus", which occurred
at