ACTION AGAINST SIR BALDWIN WALKER: The fishery case of Baird et al v. Walker, which occupied the attention of the Newfoundland Supreme Court for some days, was ably argued by Sir James Winter. Q.C., and Mr. Greene, Q.C., for the plaintiffs, and Sir William V. Whiteway, and Mr. Kent, Q.C., for the defendants. Sir William V. Whiteway said he appeared at the instance of the Queen to maintain Her Majesty’s position as regards her prerogative right. Sir James Winter objected to the interference of any party not a party to the suit, even if that party was her Majesty. If Sir William appeared for the defendant, well so good. In reply to Judge Pinsent, Sir Witham Whiteway said he appeared in support of the rights of the Crown, and necessarily acted for the defendants. He said it was urged that the Sovereign had not unlimited power to enter into treaties except a treaty of peace. The plaintiffs failed to classify properly the different treaties. A treaty made to prevent war was as much a treaty of peace as one to conclude a war. The modus operandi was made to prevent war, and therefore this making of it was within the power of the Crown authorities. The plaintiffs had tailed to produce a judicial decision to show that the Queen’s prerogative to make treaties was not absolute. To show that it was, he cited several cases. The individual who had suffered wrong should have applied to Parliament and not to the court. He could say that there would be an enquiry held as to the loss sustained by persons on account of the modus vivendi, and where loss was shown to have been sustained compensation would be given.
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