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/ssactsengr0222 and id is 1 raw text is: A.-G. V. BRODIE [1846]
or forfeited under the Slave Trade Abolition Act? If those words are confined to
the cases of prize and forfeitures, under the Abolition Act, cadit questio, because
then there is an end of the whole argument with respect to continuous ownership,
for the whole argument rests entirely upon those words; but if, as we, for the pre-
sent, assume for argument's sake, these words have no such limitation, but that,
instead of being restricted to those cases, are perfectly general, and do not apply
merely to the cases of prize vessels and slave-trade forfeited [11] vessels, supposing
them to be so general, according to the Respondent's argument, are we to assume
that those words were added, not having existed before, for the express purpose of
making what?-of making owned, or rather belong to (for that is the ex-
pression there), qualified still further, by the introduction of another requisite,
viz., that they should always have so belonged to. If the Legislature thought it
necessary to add these words, because the words belong to, in themselves, were not
sufficient, what are we to say, then, when they leave out these words? We cannot
get over that; they leave out the words in the case in question, and say, owned
by: then if belong to did not mean continuous ownership, the addition of
the further words, which shall always have belonged to, we say owned by, in
parity of reasoning, does not mean continuous ownership; but when those new
words, adding an additional condition, are taken into the account, the words
owned by must be confined to the present meaning, viz., owned by, at the time
of the registration.
It appears to their Lordships, therefore, that this is a case, free from all reason-
able doubt, and that they must construe the words of the Act as they find them.
There is no difference between the words of the Act and the Proclamation : we must
take them together; and taking them so, we are of opinion that this judgment
cannot stand. It was a judgment upon a special case: the judgment states the
facts, in the nature of a special verdict, and this is in the nature of a Writ of Error,
upon that special verdict, though it only purports to be upon a special case. We
reverse the Judgment of the Court below, and give Judgment for the Plaintiff, with
nominal damages.
[Mews' Dig. tit. SHIPPING, A.; III. REGISTRATION, 1. Under M.S. Acts, b. Foreign
Owners-Foreign Ships. S.C. 4 Moo. Ind. App. 179. On point (i.) as to what
is a British ship, cf. s. 1 of Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 and 58 Vict., c.
60); (ii.) as to inability of Court to supply casus omissus (6 Moo. P.C. 9), cf.
Mersey Docks, etc., Board v. Henderson, 1888, 13 A.C. 602; Green v. Wood,
1845, 7 Q.B. at p. 185; Whiteley v. Chappell, 1868, L.R. 4 Q.B. 147; Pinker-
ton v. Easton, 1873, L.R. 16 Eq. 490, 492; Scott v. Legg, 1877, 10 Q.B.D. 238.
3 and 4 Vict., c. 56, was repealed as to all H.M.'s dominions by S.L.R. (No. 2)
Act, 1890; Act X. of 1841 was amended by Act XI. of 1850; Act V. of 1883;
and Act VII. of 1891.]
[12] ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT AT MADRAS,
HIS MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL, at the relation of GEORGE WEST-
COTT,-Informant; WILLIAM DOUGLAS BRODIE and Others,-De-
fendants* [Dec. 15, 1846].
Heard ex parte.
The Supreme Court at Madras (established by the Madras Charter of 1800) has
an equitable jurisdiction, similar to, and corresponding with, the equitable
jurisdiction exercised by the Court of Chancery in England, over charities
[6 Moo. P.C. 21].
* Present: Members of the Judicial Committee,-Lord Brougham, Lord Lang-
dale, the Right Hon. Dr. Lushington, and the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh.
Privy Councillors,-Assessors,--Sir E. H. East, Bart., and Sir E. Ryan, Knt.
VI M OORE, 11](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0222&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)