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/ssactsengr0180 and id is 1 raw text is: MARIA V. HALL
on subjects out of the realm, though it was disused before the period at which that
act was passed. 1 Hale P. C. 355, Attainder. The stat. 33 Hen. 8, c. 23, was not
introductory of a new law, it only introduced a better mode of trying according to
the old law, and of carrying its principle into effect, a principle consonant to the
laws of all nations, that subjects, wherever they may [31] be, are amenable to the laws
of their own country. The prisoner was, at the time of committing this offence, a
subject of Great Britain. One who receives the protection of the laws, is subject to
the laws. The whole of the treatment he received, and the engagements he was per-
mitted to enter into, at Pulopenang, were benefits, conferred on him by the laws.
Prisoners of war were originally put to death ; then condemned to perpetual slavery;
to this succeeded the system of ransoming; and the practice now is to exchange them.
Bynkershoek. Quest. Jur. Pub. lib. 1, c. 1. But after an enemy is become a prisoner,
all that he receives, is grace and favour; his life itself is prolonged by grace and
favour; it is grace and favour that he shall be tried by the municipal laws of the
country where he is a prisoner, instead of martial law, which is more severe. He is
not then less amenable, because he happens to be out of the realm, if he continues, as
the prisoner did, under the protection of the laws ; for it will not be argued, that if
an Englishman had taken the life of the prisoner, he could not have been tried by
this commission. Every case decided under the statute 28 Hen. 8, c. 15, is an
authority for a like decision under this act. It is not necessary to inquire what
authority the Admiralty Courts had before the passing of 28 Hen. 8, c. 15, because
the commission under which they now sit only authorizes them to try the offences
named in that statute. That commission would not enable them to try an alien for
the murder of an alien committed in a foreign ship. It extends only to native
subjects, or such as receive the protection of the laws of this country; and as that
statute enables the commissioners to try offences committed on the high seas, so does
the statute of 33 H. 8, c. 23, give power to try offences committed any where without
the realm by those who are in the king's allegiance. (32] There are three recent
cases of the trials of foreigners for similar offences under 28 Hen. 8. The first in
order of time is that of Frangois Antoine Sauvajot, a French prisoner of war, who
was indicted for the murder of Mosteau, another French prisoner of war, on board
the Triton East Indiaman, upon the high seas, at the entrance of the English
Channel, in September 1799. He was convicted of manslaughter, and burnt in the
hand. This was a short time after the act 39 Geo. 3, c. 37, s. 1, received the royal
assent (a)'. The second case is that of Jean Prev6t, a Frenchman, who had entered at
Falmouth as a mariner on board the Lady Shore transport : he was indicted at the
Old Bailey in December 1799, for that on the high seas, within the jurisdiction of
the Admiralty of England, with force and arms he assaulted and murdered Wilcox,
the master of the Lady Shore, a transport. The offence was committed in August
1797, off Cape Trion in Africa, on the passage to New South Wales. He was con.
victed and executed. It is not known whether he was a prisoner of war or not. The
third case is that of Acow, a Chinese mariner, who was tried for a murder committed
in May 1806, on another Chinese mariner, on board the Travers East Indiaman, on
the high seas, about 20 leagues from the Azores, in the course of the homeward voyage,
from which circumstances it appears that the prisoner must have entered on board
that ship abroad. It is true that none of these persons had the benefit of counsel
upon their trials, but they had the benefit of that humanity and discretion which
suggested the propriety of the present argument. The statute of 33 Hen. 8 must
therefore be construed in the same manner as that of 28 Hen. 8. And the jurisdiction
given by the former, must be deemed to extend to all of-[33-fences committed ashore
in foreign countries, as the latter has been held to comprehend those committed on
the sea (a)2.
MARIA v. HALL.
Assumpsit. The first count of the declaration was for labour care and diligence,
by the Plaintiff done performed and bestowed in and about the business of the Defen-
(a) That was on 10th May 1799.
(a)2 No judgment was ever given in this case, but the prisoner was afterwards
discharged.
I TAUNT. 31,](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0180&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)