1842. LOGAN v. BURSLEM. The Guiana. called into existence, which could grant the Inhibition ; but then the Act of Parliament is, "unless the Inhibition shall be applied for and decreed within twelve months from the time when such decree or sentence was pronounced." Now there is scarcely any case in which there could be a Court capable of granting an Inhibition immediately after the sentence had been pronounced, certainly there are many cases in which no such Court could exist. With regard to what took place before the Judicial Committee Act passed, where there was an appeal from the High Court of Admiralty to the Court of Delegates, it must have been at least some days, or weeks, or months, before there could have been a petition presented to the Crown for a Commission of Delegates, and the Commission executed and accepted by those to whom it was addressed. Then, with reference to an appeal from the Vice-Admiralty Court abroad to the High Court of Admiralty in England, it must have been weeks and months, very often, before there could be an appeal brought from the Vice-Admiralty Court to this part of the world, lodged in the High Court of Admiralty in England, and then, an opportunity occurring, of applying for an Inhibition, and an Inhibition being decreed. It seems to us, therefore, that there are no means, either of omitting words, or of adding words, that will authorise us in putting the construction upon the Statute which is contended for. Their lordships regret that the Appellants should be shut out from the opportunity of having their appeal heard; but, however great that hardship may be, that cannot alter the law. It has been said, that hard cases make bad law; and their lordships must guard against the inclinations that Judges may feel, on the ground that there may be a pressure of the law in any particular case. The Courts must look at general rules, and be governed by them. It gives us less regret, however, in this case, because there was, as it seems, very considerable laches on the part of the Appellants. They heard of the condemnation in the month of October, and they took no judicial step until the month of July following; and between the 16th of July and the 12th of August, if they had made the usual applications to the officers who superintend these matters, we have no doubt at all that there would have been a reference by the Queen in Council to the Judicial Committee before the year expired. It seems to us, therefore, that they themselves are to blame if there is any hardship. However that may be, their lordships are of opinion that the Act of Parliament has imposed a condition which has not been complied with, and that, therefore, the appeal cannot be prosecuted. It is not, however, a case for costs. 1842. LOGAN v. BURSLEM. The Guiana. See next Case. ON PROTEST AGAINST AN APPEAL FROM SIERRA LEONE. COURT AT MANOEL FRANCISCO LOPEZ, and others Appellants, AND LIEUT. GODOLPHIN JAMES BURSLEM," the Officers and Crew of Her Ma-Respondents.* jesty's Ship VIPER, and the QUEEN. The Ship GUIANA. 28th & 29th THE facts of this case, so far as the owners of the Nov. 1843. vessel Guiana were concerned, are fully detailed in the The present appeal differed in no respect from the former, except that it was the appeal The 5th Geo. preceding case. IV., c. 113, (the Slave Abolition Act) sec. 29, of the owners of the cargo laden on board the vessel, enacts that no appeals shall be prosecuted from any sentence *Present: The Lord Langdale, Lord Campbell, the Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, and the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington. of any Protest against an appeal sustained; the Appellants (Brazilian subjects), the owners of the cargo on board a vessel seized and condemned under the 5th Geo. IV., c. 113, having failed to procure an Inhibition to issue within twelve months from the date of the condemnation. The British Parliament have no power to legislate for foreigners out of the dominions and beyond the jurisdiction of the Crown; yet it can by Statute fix the time within which application must be made for redress, to the tribunals of the Empire. This being matter of procedure, becomes the law of the forum, by which all mankind are bound. and seized and condemned therewith, who were Brazilian subjects.* 1813. LOPEZ v. BURSLEM The Respondents, as in the preceding case, appeared under Protest of the 29th section of 5 Geo. IV., c. 113, and others. * In pursuance of the 6th & 7th Vic., chap. 38, s. 1, which enacted that appeals, &c., might be heard by not less than three Members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, under a special order of Her Majesty, the following Order in Council was made in this case :— Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c. To our trusty and wellbeloved James, Lord Wharncliffe, the Lord President of our Privy Council, and to our trusty and wellbeloved Privy Councillors, being Members of the Judicial Committee of our Privy Council. Whereas by an Act passed in the present year of our Reign, intituled, 'An Act to make further Regulations for facilitating the hearing of appeals and other matters by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,' it was amongst other things enacted, 'That in any appeal, application for prolongation or confirmation of Letters Patent, or other matter referred, or hereafter to be referred, by Her Majesty in Council to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by Order in Council, or special direction under Her Royal Sign Manual, having regard to the nature of the said appeal or other matter, and in respect of the same, not requiring the presence of more than three Members of the said Committee, to order that the same be heard, and when so ordered it shall be lawful that the same shall be accordingly heard by not less than three of the Members of the said Judicial Committee, subject to such other rules as are applicable, or, under this Act, may be applicable, to the hearing and making Report of appeals and other matters by four or more of the Members of the said Judicial Committee:' Now know ye, that we, reposing great trust and confidence in your knowledge and integrity, have ordered, and do by these presents order, pursuant to the powers vested in us by the said recited Act, that the matter of a certain appeal from a decree of the Vice-Admiralty Court at Sierra Leone, touching the seizure and condemnation of the ship Guiana' and cargo, be accordingly heard by not less than three of you, being Members of the Judicial Committee of our Privy Council, subject to such rules as are applicable to The Guiana. 1843. LOPEZ v. BURSLEM and others. the Appellants not having procured an Inhibition to issue within twelve months after the condemnation pronounced by the Admiralty Court at Sierra Leone. The question raised by the Protest against the right The Guiana. to appeal, and argued, was whether the Appellants, the owners of the cargo on board the Guiana, being Brazilian subjects, and the vessel captured at sea, were amenable to the provisions of the Statute 5 Geo. IV., chap. 113. The Appellants contended that they were amenable only to the treaties entered into between this country and the Brazils for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and that, consequently, the Vice-Admiralty Court at Sierra Leone had no jurisdiction under the Statute to have made any decree whatever in that cause, so far as concerned the cargo; but that if any breach of treaty had been committed, it should have been referred to the British and Brazilian mixed Commission Court at Sierra Leone, as the tribunal specially 1843.* the hearing and making report on appeals and other matters by four or more of the Members of the Judicial Committee of our Privy Council. "Given at our Court at Windsor, the 4th day of August, in the seventh year of our Reign. "By Her Majesty's Command, Upon the above Order in Council being read, Lord BROUGHAM "J. GRAHAM." 5th August Observed, that it was to be distinctly understood, that the late Act, 6th & 7th Vic., c. 38, which was now for the first time brought into operation, is only applicable to matters of inferior importance. There must be an Order in each case. The Order was however not acted on, the cause as above stated being subsequently heard by four Members of the Judicial Committee. * Present: Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington. |