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/ssactsengr0539 and id is 1 raw text is: DEARS. & BELL 58. REGINA V. CHRISTIAN SATTLER 111
torial limits of any other state, are subject to the jurisdiction of the state to which
they belong.
Many authorities on the subject are to be found [538] in the American reports,
and they all tend to support the view for which I contend.
In The United States v. Palmer and others (3 Wheaton, Rep. 610) Johnson J. lays
down the broad principle that Congress can inflict punishment for offences committed
on board vessels of the United States, or by citizens of the United States anywhere.
In The United States v. Holmes (5 Wheaton, Rep. 412), Washington J., delivering
the judgment of the Supreme Court, says, that it makes no difference whether the
offender be a citizen of the United States or not. If it (the crime) be committed
on board of a foreign vessel by a citizen of the United States, or on board of a vessel
of the United States by a foreigner, the offender is to be considered pro hac vice, and
in respect to this subject, as belonging to the nation under whose flag he sails.
The case of Rex v. Depardo (I Taunt. 26), and the decisions therein referred to,
and the view taken in Regina v. Serva (1 Den. C. C. 104) are all against the contention
now made on behalf of the prisoner.
Ballantine Serjt. in reply. I was quite aware of the strength of the American
cases, but the question is what weight you give to those decisions, and whether you
think they are in accordance with the general principles of international law, on which
this important question depends; and I submit that the passage in Kent's Com-
mentaries, to vhich I have referred, is not qualified by any other proposition laid
down by that learned commentator and is decidedly in favour of the view for which
I contend.
Lord Campbell C. J. intimated that the Court would hear the argument in Regina
v. Sattler before giving judgment.
[539] The Court then proceeded to hear the case of
Regina v. Sattler.
On the trial of Christian Sattler at the Central Criminal Court, the following
case was reserved and stated by Martin B.
The prisoner was a foreigner. On the 2d November 1857, he committed a larceny
at St. Ives in Huntingdonshire and went away from England with part of the stolen
property to Hamburgh. The owner of the property gave information to the London
police, and the deceased, who was a detective officer of that force and an English
subject, proceeded to Hamburgh and there, with the assistance of the Hamburgh
police, arrested the prisoner and brought him against his will on board an English
steamer trading between Hamburgh and London in order that he might be tried
for the larceny. Hamburgh is on the river Elbe sixty miles from the sea ; but the
tide flows higher up than the place where the steamer was when the prisoner was
taken on board. The steamer left Hamburgh on the morning of the 21st November
the prisoner being in irons, and on the 22d, whilst the steamer was on the high seas,
he shot the officer, who afterwards died of the wound. If the killing had been by an
Englishman in an English county it would have been murder. The deceased had no
warrant.
The question which I desire to be answered is, whether there was any jurisdiction
to try the prisoner at the Old Bailey Sessions. If the answer be in the affirmative,
the judgment which has been already given is to be affirmed. If in the negative, the
judgment is to be reversed ; but the prisoner is to remain in custody to be tried on
the indictment which has been found by th6 grand jury for the larceny.
[540] I also request, for my own guidance, the opinion of the Judges upon the
following questions.
1st. Was the custody of the prisoner on board the steamer lawful, and is there
any distinction as to the times whilst the steamer was in the river Elbe and whilst
she was upon the high seas ?
2nd. Supposing the custody not to have been lawful, was the killing necessarily
only manslaughter ? SAMUEL MARTIN.
January 16th, 1858.
The Solicitor General and Welsby now appeared on behalf of the Crown; and
Ballantine Serjt. (instructed by the Solicitor to the Treasury) for the prisoner*;
for whom Lilley and Tindal Atkinson, who defended the prisoner in the Central
Criminal Court (instructed by the Sheriffs of London), also appeared.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0539&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)