1850. HAMMOND v. ROGERS. The Christiana. under ordinary circumstances, the Master was to exer- Whose neglect, then, was it, that the top-gallant yards, masts, &c., the cause of damage, were not sent down? The Trinity Masters considered that it was the fault, not of the Pilot exclusively, but of both the Pilot and the Master; that the former, when he brought the vessel to anchor, ought to have seen that the top-gallant yards, &c., were sent down, as a part of the proceeding of anchoring; and after the vessel drifted, he ought to have done so, as a part of his duty in navigating the ship; but that the Master was bound, in the ordinary course of navigation, and inde . pendently of local knowledge, to do the same thing, in the first instance, in such an anchoring ground, and under such circumstances as the "Christiana" was placed in. This, we have good reason to believe, was the ground on which their opinion was founded; had this been a local usage, depending on local circumstances, we should have thought that it was the exclusive duty of the Pilot to have taken care that that usage was complied with; but the step being one which every Master, according to the ordinary course of navigation, ought to have taken in every open roadstead, where many vessels were lying, and in blowing weather, that duty was not exclusively the Pilot's, but that of the Master also; and if the Pilot had given express orders to the Master not to send down the top-masts, &c., we do not say that the Owners might not have been excused from responsibility for the consequences of that omission. We certainly are not bound, any more than the learned Judge of the Admiralty Court was, by the opinion of the Trinity Masters, but we, of course, give great weight to their nautical experience, and we do not see any ground for being dissatisfied with the opinion that they formed. We think, that the fault, in this case, was one for which the Pilot was not exclusively responsible, and, therefore, that we ought to advise Her Majesty to affirm the judgment of the Admiralty Court. 1850. HAMMOND v. ROGERS. The Christiana. ON APPEAL FROM SIERRA LEONE. MAGNUS SMITH AND Appellant, 24th & 25th Feb., 1848. Appeal allowed from Orders made by the Judges at Sierra Leone, striking a THE JUSTICES OF SIERRA LEONE Respondents.* THIS was a petition and appeal brought by the Appellant, an Advocate and Attorney, practising in the Courts in the Colony of Sierra Leone, complaining of three Orders made by the Judges of that Colony. First, an Order or proceeding, dated the 29th of January, 1844, whereby the Respondent, practitioner of Chief Justice Carr, in his capacity of Chief Justice, that Colony, in charging the Grand Jury at the General Quarter off the rolls of Sessions of the peace, held for the Colony of Sierra Leone, animadverted upon the practice of allowing legal practitioners to officiate professionally at the Police Office, and directed that such practice should not be permitted in future. Secondly, an Order of the Court, the Courts in Proctors of the Vice-Admiralty Court, and also off the rolls as Attorney of the Court at Free- dated the 21st day of February, 1844, whereby the Appellant was struck off the roll of Proctors of the town; upon terms, that the Petitioner gave notice * Present: Lord Langdale, Lord Campbell, the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, and the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh. of the allow- Two Orders made by the Judges at Sierra Leone, striking a practitioner of the Courts off the rolls, for alleged misrepresentation, contempt, and misconduct; Held on appeal by the Judicial Committee, to have been improperly made, and ordered to be discharged, and the Appellant restored to the rolls. But, under the circumstances of the case, the Judicial Committee directed the Appellant to apply to the Court, in the Colony, for such re-admission. Vice-Admiralty Court; and thirdly, another Order of the Court, dated the 4th of September, in the same year, whereby the Appellant was struck off the rolls of the Court of the Recorder, at Freetown, for alleged contempt, misrepresentation, and misconduct. The circumstances of the case, and nature of the proceedings which led to the making or these Orders, are fully stated in the Judgment. The Appellant presented a petition to Her Majesty in Council, praying, that she would be pleased to admit an appeal from the several Orders, the effect of which precluded and disabled him from practising in the Colony, and that the same might be rescinded, and notice of the petition might be given to the Judge who made the Orders, and that an early day might be appointed for the hearing. Mr. Edmund F. Moore, for the Petitioner, Lord BROUGHAM: As this application is ex parte, notice ought to be given to the Judges. In the case of Monckton (d), which was heard ex parte, the Judges in the Colony complained that they had not been served. Leave to appeal was granted upon giving security for costs, and upon service of the Judges of the Court at Sierra Leone, with a copy of the Order admitting * Present: Lord Brougham, Lord Langdale, the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, and the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh. (a) 3 Moore's P. C. Cases, 361. (c) Clark's Col. Law, p. 502. (b) Ib. 414. (d) 1 Moore's P. C. Cases, 455. 1848. SMITH ย. THE JUSTICES OF SIERRA 16th Dec., 1846.* 1848. SMITH บ. THE JUSTICES April 13th, 1848. the appeal; with notice to them to enter an appearance to the appeal; the petitioner being at liberty to set down the appeal ex parte, at the expiration of six months from the service of such Order upon the Judges in the Colony. The Judges having been served with notice, in conformity with the above directions, appeared and lodged cases. Chief Justice Carr and Mr. Justice Hornell denied that the first-mentioned Order or direction was ever made by the Chief Justice; and further contended, that the other Orders, removing the Appellant from the rolls of Proctors and Attornies, were justified by his conduct towards the Court. The other Judge, Mr. Hook, put in a separate case, stating, that there had been nothing in the conduct of the Appellant towards the Court, which could justify his removal. Affidavits were filed on both sides. The appeal now came on for hearing. Mr. M. D. Hill, Q. C., and Mr. Edmund F. Contended, that such Orders were irregular; having Sir Frederick Thesiger, Q.C., and Mr. Lush, for the Chief Justice Carr, and Mr. Justice Hornell, in support of the Orders. Lord LANGDALE: This is the petition of Magnus Smith, praying that three Orders, stated to have been made in the Courts of the Colony of Sierra Leone, may be rescinded, namely: First. An Order stated to have been made on the |