CO885-(15-16) — Page 385

9

Upon the authority of these cases, and bearing in mind the statement in the Minute of the Solicitor to the Board of Trade that no assistance could be obtained from either the Registrar or Marshal at the Admiralty Registry of the High Court, I am disposed to concur in the opinion that the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division has no jurisdiction to order the seizure and detention of a yessel for a breach of any Colonial law, and that accordingly the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, did not confer upon the Supreme Court of one Colony power to order the seizure of a vessel for the breach of the laws of another Colony.

May 18, 1905.

N. J. HIGHмORE.

19125

No. 11A.

AUSTRALIA.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Recognition of Colonial Laws in Courts of the United Kingdom.}

House of Lords,

June 2, 1905.

The Lord Chancellor presents his compliments to Mr. Lyttelton and returns the papers enclosed with his letter of the 29th ultimo. It appears to his Lordship, upon the statement of the Governor-General, that the Court, in the case referred to, was not aware of, and did not have its attention called to, the Victorian Married Women's Property Act, 1890. That is a circumstance which no legislation could affect; and the Lord Chancellor has no reason to suppose that, had the proper information been before the Court, full effect would not have been given to the Statutory Law. In his Lordship's opinion there is no need for any legislation on the subject.

See No. 10.

25 W 1649 3,07 D&S

5

07849

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.885

Reference :-

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO