1851. STRACHAN v. DOUGALL. must be repaid to him, but no costs of the plea are to be allowed to either party, or upon the proceedings subsequent to such plea. The report of the Judicial Committee was approved by Her Majesty; and by an Order in Council, it was ordered "that the said order of the Court of Chancery of Jamaica, entered up in the Court on the 3rd of March, 1846, and likewise the said decree of the said Court, entered up on the 1st of March, 1849, be, and the same are hereby reversed, and that any costs paid by the Appellant under the said order and decree respectively, be repaid to the said Appellant, and that the plea be overruled, and the cause do proceed in the ordinary course; and Her Majesty was further pleased to order that no costs of the plea be allowed, and no costs to either party of the proceedings subsequent to the plea, and that the case be remitted to the Court of Chancery in Jamaica, with these directions. Whereof the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, or Commander-in-Chief of the island of Jamaica, for the time being, and all other persons whom it may concern, are to take notice, and govern themselves accordingly." ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT THOMAS CHARLES LOUGHNAN and Appellants, others, HAJI JOOSUB BHULLADINA and an- -} Respondents.* other THE HYDROOS." THIS was a question respecting the Appellants' right 18th Feb., to appeal from a sentence of the Supreme Court at * Present: Lord Langdale, the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh, and the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan. 1851. The Bombay Charter (December, 1823,) establishes the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court," as the same is used and exercised in that part of Great Britain called England, together with all and singular their incidents, emergents and dependencies annexed and connexed causes whatsoever; and to proceed summarily therein, with all possible despatch, according to the course of our Admiralty in that part of Great Britain called England." Held, upon a construction of such Charter, that the rules and practice of the High Court of Admiralty in England, prevail and govern the proceedings in the Supreme Court at Bombay, in maritime causes. а In a salvage cause, the Supreme Court, by its sentence pronounced in March, 1849, dismissed the claim of the salvors. In the month of April following, the Promovents moved for a rule nisi, to show cause why the Defendants should not pay their costs. This rule the Court refused. In August, in the same year, the Promovents applied for and the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to England from the principal sentence of March, 1849. No objection was taken to the competency of the appeal in Bombay by the Respondents, nor was any protest against the right of appeal ntered in England, but the Respondents at the hearing objected to the reception of the same, contending, that the appeal was perempted by the proceedings had in the month of April. Held, that such objection was fatal, that the application for costs after the decision in the cause, had the effect of absolutely perempting the appeal, so as to entirely take away from the Supreme Court the power of granting leave to appeal, as nothing could, after the proceedings in April, be done to restore the appeal from the principal sentence. Costs of appeal, under the circumstances, refused. 1851. Bombay, in its Admiralty jurisdiction, in a cause of LOUGHNAN Salvage: whether the appeal was not perempted by the act of the Appellants. v. HAJI JOOSUB This objection was taken at the hearing of the apThe Hydroos. peal, and arose under the following circumstances :The cause was promoted in the Supreme Court at Bombay, by the Appellants, for salvage services rendered by them to the ship "Hydroos" and her cargo, the property of the Respondents. The cause came on for hearing on the 14th of March, 1849, when the Court dismissed the Act on petition for salvage. On the 5th of April following, a motion was made by Counsel for the Promovents for a rule nisi, calling upon the Defendants to show cause why they should not pay the Promovents for their costs in the cause. This motion was heard and refused by the Court. On the 6th of August following, the Appellants presented a petition for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council from the principal sentence, dated the 14th of March, 1849, which the Court granted. The Respondents put in an absolute appearance, and no objection was taken at Bombay to the competency of the appeal. The Respondents raised, in their printed case, for the first time, an objection to the competency of the appeal, contending, that the right of the Appellants to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court, dismissing their claim for salvage, had been absolutely and altogether perempted, when they filed their petition for leave to appeal, which was the first step on their part, indicative of their intention to appeal ; and the Respondents prayed, that the order of the Supreme Court, allowing the appeal, might be reversed, and the appeal dismissed with costs, by reason that such leave to appeal could not legally be given, and, 1851. therefore, ought not to have been given by the Supreme Court at Bombay, at the time and under the LOUGHNAN circumstances at and under which it was given; and that such appeal was a nullity in law. The appeal being opened upon the merits, Dr. Addams, and Mr. Aspland, for the Respon dents, were heard in support of this objection. Upon the question of peremption of the appeal, they cited The ship Clifton (a), The Queen v. Joze Alves Dias (b), Lloyd v. Poole (c), Greg v. Greg (d), Voet., vol. ii. lib. xlix. tit. " De appellationibus et relationibus," sec. 1, and insisted, that the objection to the appeal was in time, even if made at the hearing, Rochfort v. Battersby (e). The Queen's Advocate (Sir John Dodson), Mr. Relied upon the acquiescence of the Appellants in The Right Hon. Dr. LUSHINGTON: The present question arises upon an objection taken (a) 3 Knapp's P. C. Cases, 375. (c) 3 Hagg. Ecc. Rep. 477. (e) 2 H. L. Cases, 388. (b) 6 Moore's P. C. Cases, 102. (ƒ) 23rd Dec., 1823. See post, p. 378, for extracts of this Charter. v. HAJI JOOSUB The Hydroos. 1851. LOUGHNAN v. HAJI JOOSUB on behalf of the owners of the property, against which the salvors claim; on the ground, that the asserted salvors ought not to be permitted, under the circumBHULLADINA. stances of the case, to proceed with their appeal The Hydroos. against the sentence of the Admiralty Court at Bombay, by which sentence it was pronounced that they were not entitled to salvage. The facts of the case are shortly these: the principal sentence was pronounced on the 14th of March, 1849, and on the 5th of April, as appears from the papers, the following proceeding took place:-" Mr. Advocate-General being of Counsel for Promovents, moved for a rule to show cause why the Respondents should not pay to the Promovents their costs of the proceedings in the above matter; whereupon, and on hearing Mr. Howard, also of Counsel for the Promovents, who followed on the same side, it was ordered, that the said motion be refused, and that each party do pay their own costs of the hearing in the above matter, and of all other proceedings therein." Now, there cannot be any doubt, that if proceedings, such as are here mentioned, had taken place in the High Court of Admiralty in England, or in any Vice-Admiralty Court, or Admiralty Court governed by the same rules and regulations, any right of appeal, which existed in the claimants on the 14th of March, 1849, would have been entirely perempted and put an end to by those proceedings on the 5th of April. This is a rule which has always been adhered to with great strictness, and one of the cases which have been cited, the case of "The ship Clifton," proves with what severity the Court has been in the habit of applying this rule. We apprehend that the effect of perempting the appeal is entirely to take away the right of the |