—
Admiralty.
60 Sect.
1.
History of Admiralty Jurisdic-
Gourts could take cognizance, whilst the Admiralty Court asserted the highest and fullest jurisdiction over all torts committed upon the high seas, and over every kind of contract and everything which could happen upon the high seas (i). From time to time during this period the Court of Admiralty attempted without success to come to some agreement with the judges of the Common Law Courts as to the extent of its jurisdiction (j), and in the result it submitted to its civil jurisdiction being so narrowed and curtailed in practice that the only important subjects over which in the reign of William IV. it was enabled to exercise jurisdiction Collisions between ships on the high seas were the following outside the body of any county k) salvage services rendered to property on the high seas and between high and low water mark, but otherwise not within the body of any county (I) droits of Admiralty (vi) possession of ships where no title was in question (n) bottomry, so called because money had been lent on the security of the bottom of the ship, and respondentia and claims of seamen's wages when there had been no special contract. The Court had also jurisdiction over the goods of pirates and goods piratically taken (o) and as part of its old criminal or disciplinary jurisdiction, it entertained suits against masters of ships for assaults and battery committed on the high seas where the complainants were officers, seamen, or passengers of the ship {})). Actions in respect of necessaries supplied on the high seas and for towage on the high seas seem also to have been within the jurisdiction, but seldom, if ever, occurred in practice.
—
(
Sect. Arrest of
defendant or his property.
2.
Exercise of the Jurisdiction,
88. The jurisdiction possessed by the High Court of Admiralty at first to have been ordinarily exercised by means of the arrest of the person of the defendant, who was required to give bail both to enter an appearance and to answer judgment in the cause {q). Where a defendant was not arrested, there was apparently
seems
K
(/) V. Judge of City of London Court, [1892] 1 Q. B. 273, j>er Lord EsHER, M.E., at p. 292. Inst. (/) In the reign of Elizabeth (4 Inst. 135), in the 8th year of James I. (4 134), and in the 9th year of Charles I. ( (1632), Cro. Car. 296), there appear to have been proceedings of this kind. The answer of the judges to one of the complaints made to the King by the Lord High Admiral concerning prohibitions granted to the Court of Admiralty on one of these occasions was in these terms: "We acknowledge that of contracts pleas" and quarrels made upon the sea or any part thereof which is not within any county (from whence no trial " can be had by twelve men), the Admiral hath and ought to have jurisdiction (4 Inst. 134, cited in The Zeta, [1893] A. C. 468, at p. 482). {k) Under 12 Geo. 3, c. 75, s. 31; see Velthisen v. Ormdeij (1789), ,3 Term Eep. 315. W. Eob. 251; The Two Friends (1799), 1 (/) Raft of Tlmler (1844), 2 The Eleanor (1805), 6 C. Eob. 39. C. Eob.*27l (m) See p. 76, "post, (n) The Warrior (1818), 2 Dods. 288. (o) The Hercules (1819), 2 Dods. 353. (p) The Ruchers (1801), 4 C. Eob. 73; Le Caux v. Eden (1781), 2 Dougl. 594,
at p. 609. [q]
Clerke's Praxis Curiae Admiralitatis, 3rd ed. (1722),
tit. 3.
