HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0133 and id is 1 raw text is: LINDO V. R. [1836]
Admiralty Court at the Cape of Good Hope, or to the eastward thereof, in which
cases eighteen months shall be allowed for the prosecution of the said [3] appeal.
The question is whether it was the intention of this enactment to exclude the dis-
cretion previously vested in the Privy Council, and whether your Lordships have not
power to extend the time for appeal. It is a proper case for appeal without doubt.
Mr. Baron Parke.-All their Lordships are of opinion that they are concluded
by the section of the Act referred to, unless the conditions there specified have been
complied with.
[Mews' Dig. tit. COLONY; III. APPEALS TO PRIVY COUNCIL; 6. Practice; a. Time and
Extension thereof. S. 29 of 5 Geo. IV. c. 113, is repealed by the Slave Trade
Consolidation Act, 1873 (36 and 37 Vict. c. 88). As to appeals to H.M. in
Council from Colonial Courts of Admiralty, see 0. in C. of 11th Dec. 1865 (4
Stat. R. and 0. Rev. 403); Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 (53 and 54
Vict. c. 27), ss. 6, 7, 16, 18 (b); Rules of 1883 (1 Stat. R. and 0. Rev. pp. 649-650).
The Courts in which the Rules of 1883 have been superseded by rules made by
the rule-making authorities of such Courts under s. 7 of the Act of 1890 are
enumerated in Pulling's Index to the Stat. R. and 0. 3rd Ed. p. 106 n., up to
31st Dec. 1899. See also Jud. Acts, 1873 (36 and 37 Vict. c. 66), s. 18; and
1891 (54 and 55 Viet. c. 53), s. 4 (3); Logan v. Burslem, 1842, 4 Moo. P.C. 284;
Lopez v. Burslem, 1843, 4 Moo. P.C. 300; Aquila (The Ship), 1847-49, 6 Moo.
P.C. 102; Ricardo Schmidt (The), 1866, L.R. 1 P.C. 115.]
ON APPEAL FROM THE VICE ADMIRALTY COURT OF SIERRA LEONE.
ELIAS HAIN LINDO, the lawful Agent of PAUL ROBBRECHT, the sole Owner of
the French Ship or Vessel La Laure,-Appellant; OUR SOVEREIGN LORD
THE KING,-Respondent [May 30, 1836].
After a delay of six years the Judicial Conmmittee refused to grant leave to
prosecute an appeal, though the delay arose from circumstances over which
it was sworn the appellant had no control.
The petition of appeal in this case was presented in July 1835, and stated, that
by a sentence in the Admiralty Court of Sierra Leone, pronounced on the 18th
November 1629, the ship La Laure was condemned and forfeited to His Majesty.
That Captain Jastram, the master, having no agent at Sierra Leone, or means to
procure professional advice, was ignorant of the grounds on which the vessel was
condemned; that Paul Robbrecht, the owner, though informed of the condemnation
of the ship, was unaware of the grounds on which the sentence of condemnation
was founded, and ignorant of any limita-[4]-tion as to the time of appealing against
the sentence, and was in consequence of such condemnation, until the year 1833,
in a state of pecuniary embarrassment, and unable to obtain funds for appealing
from the decree of condemnation: that in the beginning of 1832, be appointed the
appellant his agent for the purpose of obtaining relief ; that the delay in. commenc-
ing the appeal was to be attributed to causes which he, Paul Robbrecht, could not
control, to the length of time which occurred before he received information of
the condemnation of the ship, to the difficulty of communicating with- Sierra Leone,
and of discovering the proper mode of appealing, and to his pecuniary distress,
partly arising from this very seizure.
The petition was supported by an Affidavit of Elias Lindo, the agent of the
Appellant, stating his belief of the above facts; upon which,
Dr. Adams now moved for leave to prosecute the appeal.
Mr. Baron Parke.-The delay is beyond all bounds; it is quite impossible to
grant the motion.
[Mews' Dig. tit. COLONY; III. APPEALS TO PaIvY COUNCIL; 6. Practice; a. Time and
Extension thereof. Cf. Cremidi v. Parker, 1856, 1857, 11 Moo. P.C. 79.1
iMOORE, a](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0133&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)