Tag: July 1892

Law Cases: July 19^th: Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: (Present: Lord Watson, Lord Hobhouse, Lord Herschell, Lord MacNaghten, Lord Morris, Lord Hannen, Sir Richard Couch and Lord Shand): Walker v. Baird and Another: This was an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland of March 18^th 1891. The Attorney-General, Mr. Staveley Hill, Q.C. and Mr. A. T. Lawrence were counsel for the appellant; Sir James S. Winter, Q.C. (of the Newfoundland Bar), Mr. J. B. C. Munro, and Mr. T. Arnold Herbert for the respondents. The case was one of great importance. The action was brought in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland by the present respondents, Mr. James Baird and Mr. Edward Leroux, against Captain Sir Baldwin Walker, R.N. commanding her Majesty’s ship Emerald, alleging that on or about the 25th of June, 1890, he wrongfully entered their messuage and premises, situate at Fishell’s River, in Bay St. George, and took possession of their lobster factory and of a large quantity of gear, material, and implements appertaining thereto, and kept possession of the same for a long time, and prevented the plaintiffs (the respondents) from carrying on the business of catching and preserving lobsters at their factory of which he then still held possession. They claimed $5,000 and an Injunction to restrain Sir Baldwin Walker from continuing in possession of the property. Captain Sir Baldwin Walker in his defence said that he is captain of her Majesty ship Emerald, and the senior officer of the ships of the Queen employed during the then current season on the Newfoundland fisheries. To him as such senior officer and captain was committed by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, by command of her Majesty, the care and charge of putting in force and giving effect to an agreement embodied in a modus vivendi for the lobster in Newfoundland during the season, which, as an act and matter of State and public policy, had been by her Majesty entered into with the Government of the Republic of France. … (continues at length – implies need for mutual consent between both parties) … The matter was argued before the Chief Justice (Sir F. B. T. Carter) and Mr. Justice Pinsent on February 6, 9, 10, 1891. Their Lordships gave judgment for the respondents on the grounds – briefly stated – (1) that in an action of this description to which the parties are British subjects for trespass committed within British territory in time of peace it is no sufficient answer to say, in exclusion of the jurisdiction of the municipal courts that the trespass was an “act of State,” committed under the authority of an agreement or modus vivendi with a foreign Power; (2) that in such as case, as between the Queen’s subjects, the questions of the validity, interpretation, and effect of all instruments and evidences of title and authority rest, in the first place with the Court of competent jurisdiction within which the cause of action arises; (3) and that therefore the decision on the present issue, which is confined to these points, is found in favour of the plaintiffs with leave to the defendant, should it be desired to amend on payment of costs. From the judgement the present appeal was instituted. … (continues and then adjourned) …

Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive

Referenced

GRO0747 Hennock: Robert John Pinsent: 1834 – 1893