R
No. 11.
(TRINIDAD: WEST INDIES: GENERAL.)
BOARD OF CUSTOMS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Question whether under the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, a Colony can seize a vessel for a breach of the laws of another Colony.]
Custom House, London, May 26, 1905.
I AM directed by the Board of Customs to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Bertram Cox's letter of the 14th ultimo, 11410/05, transmitting, for the observa- tions of the Board, copies of correspondence which has passed between the Colonial Office and the Board of Trade relating to the question whether the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, conferred upon the Supreme Court of one Colony power to order the seizure of a vessel for a breach of the laws of another Colony.
In reply, I am to forward herewith, for the information of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, copy of a report by the Solicitor to this Department on the subject.
I am, &c.,
R. HENDERSON.
2
facilitating such proof, e.g., by some such enactment as is contained in Section 19 (1) of the Act, No. 11, of 1898, of New South Wales, if it is thought worth while to intro- duce a Bill for this purpose, but this is not what is asked for.
2. Does not arise.
3. We have nothing to add.
The Right Honourable Alfred Lyttelton, M.P.,
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
17971
We have, &c.,
R. B. FINLAY.
EDWARD CARSON.
SIR,
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O.885
Reference:-
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
REPORT of the Solicitor to the Board of Customs.
I have looked into the authorities and cases so far as they appear to me to bear upon the question raised in these papers. I have also referred to a number of sections in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which confer powers with respect to certain specific offences, but do not seem to me to throw much light upon the question.
The case of the "Fabius" referred to in the Minute of the Solicitor to the Board of Trade as having been decided in the year 1800 is reported in C. Robinson's Reports, Vol. 2, at page 245. It related to a ship seized in New Providence upon the grounds that she had exported, from Savannah la Mar in Jamaica her last clearing port, logwood, &c., in violation of the Plantation Laws of the United Kingdom. The pro- ceedings were regularly pursued in the Vice Admiralty Court of New Providence, when a sentence of confiscation was pronounced, and the cause was afterwards brought before the High Court of Admiralty in England on appeal from this sentence.
It appears from the report of the proceedings in the High Court of Admiralty that reference was made by the Court to an un-reported case in which the question of jurisdiction under similar circumstances had been previously decided. The case was that of the "Vrouw Dorothea," which was finally determined before His Majesty's High Court of Delegates at Serjeant's Inn. This ship was seized by a Naval Officer as she lay off Charlestown and was proceeded against as forfeited for having imported and exported out of Jamaica goods contrary to law. Sentence of condemnation was passed and the Master appealed to the High Court of Admiralty in England when objection was taken to the jurisdiction of the judge and on the 12th July, 1751, the High Court of Admiralty pronounced that the Vice-Admiralty Judge of Carolina had no jurisdiction. The Naval Officer appealed to the High Court of Delegates, where the cause was elaborately argued, and on the 17th June, 1754, that Court revoked the sentence of the Vice-Admiralty Court of South Carolina and decreed restitution of the ship.
In giving judgment in the case of the "Fabius" it was pronounced that the sen- tence of the High Court of Admiralty, which was affirmed by the Delegates in the case of the "Vrouw Dorothea," was "That the Judge, having heard advocates as to the jurisdiction of the Judge appealed from, declared that the Judge appealed from had no jurisdiction to enquire as to the importation or exportation of goods at Jamaica contrary to the Act of Parliament," and the Court upon that decision held that it was clear and settled law that the Vice-Admiralty Court of New Providence had no juris- diction whatever, and that the whole of the proceedings there were vexatious and null, and the decree made by the Judge of that Court was annulled.
• No. 9.
23 We 2645 6/05 D & S 6 21668