CO129-012 - Sir John Davis - 1845 [5-7] — Page 322

12

cristed in the fslony of Houghing a fourt with Criminal- and Admiralty jurisdiction and- when it was directed, (I think by in founcil of which.

an ade

· Your Excelloney has a Copy)

that that fourt should be abolished and a- Supreme fourt-established_, it

was

suppored

to be in the contemplation of the Home

to the latter fourt

Government- to give more-extensive jurisdiction in every respect than the former. But strictly speaking ive || have doubtlese fallen into prrow - Excelleney however, was

a

Your furnished with

Book touching the practice and fees of the Vice- admiralty fourts abroad, which seemed to imply that the authority for constituting such a fourt had been granted. Fortunately I have exercised _ no Kee= Admiralty jurisdiction. Before establishment of the Supreme-fourt I

of salvage

certified

in two cases

the

but this

was

was as a

te arbitrator, not in

private

$17

my

judicial_ Capacity.

It is almost superfluous for

remark to

me

to

6 your Lordship that situated_ as

this folony is a Vice - Admiralty Commission.

in due

form

will be much needed..

Ninthly - Jurisdiction of the fourt British subjects in China.

over

It is remarked by the Chief Justice The substantial objection to the 28th Section_

23rd

of Ordinance No 15 seems to be the omission to recite the ruthority under which that lection was framed -- I do not perceive any objection to declaring the juriediction of the fourt, which was ome in the present instance solely for the benefit of suitors

and others.

Tenthly, The Practice of the fourt

The