the twofold ground (as we understand his letters) that she was not provided with proper legal papers and that they had violated the Chinese Passenger Act. I. Stirling declined to comply, observing that he had no authority to seize and detain a ship for violating the Chinese Passenger Act, such ship not being a "British ship" and not within "Her Majesty's Jurisdictions". The question proposed by him was whether I. & Stirling were covering in appearing that although
38 although the ship in question "carried no national colours" and was "a matter of violating a Law, no whatever nation", he "was not justified in seizing her on the St. Lawrence".
5. It is obvious that this question, taken in reference to the case which gave rise to it, involves two points which are entirely distinct, viz., first, whether a deficiency or irregularity in a ship's papers renders her liable to seizure, and under circumstances in which another vessel whose papers are regular would not be.
7.
6.
TE
the twofold ground (as
we
!
understand his letters / that she was not provided with proper legal papers- and that the had violated the thinese Papruger Act. Lis
I. Stir
dis I Sterling
declined to comply observing that he had no au
sroze
and detain
violating
"
authority to
ship for
the thriese Sapenger Act, such shif not being a "British shif,, and not within "Her Majeshi's Houmicions: The question proposed by hird ai whether liv & Stirling
Souring in
is coveret in aperte
aperting that
although
>
38
although the ship in question. " popped no hational rights
"and was
" matter
of
violating
a Law, no
what ration, he
" was not justified hi seizing
her ou
the St.
High
Lear"
5. This obvious that this
question, taken in reference
the case
which
pave
eise wet,
sinvolves two points which are
Entirely distint, voyt, Serist whether a deficiency or viregularity in a ship's papers renders her liable to szigure
& under circumstancer hi which another repel whose papers
Are
lar wouto not be
regular
Lo
}
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.