Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 12.pdf/135

lations, and when on the dissolution of the Levant Company, in 1825, doubts were ex 8-7). 4. ^;/j' offense under the Commissioners pressed by the law officers as to whether for Oaths, Act 1889 (52 Viet., c. 9), which the consular arrangements then in force deals with oaths for purposes of judicial pro within the Ottoman Empire were legal, ceedings in England, although committed the question of general legislation on the out of the United Kingdom, may be tried or subject was taken up and a series of Foreign punished in any county or place in the Jurisdiction Acts commencing in 1843 and United Kingdom in which the accused was ending in the present Act of 1890 — were passed. The Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, apprehended or is in custody (#., s. 9). 5. The English courts have power to try declares that " whereas by treaty, capitula any British subject who anywhere in the tion, grant, usage, sufferance and other law world commits bigamy, no matter where his ful means " the Queen " has jurisdiction with first marriage took place (24 and 25 Viet., in divers foreign countries," such jurisdiction may be exercised in the same manner as if c. joo, s. 57). Colonial legislatures, how it had been acquired by the cession or con ever, have no jurisdiction over bigamy un quest of" territory." Leave is then given to der colonial acts, except where the first mar riage took place within the colony (see Mc- the Queen by order in council to bring Leod v. A. G. of New South Wales [1891], into operation a great variety of Acts of Parliament, chiefly relating to evidence, fugi App. Cas. 455). 6. Offenders against the Slave Trade Acts tives, offenders and admiralty offenses. The may, if British subjects, be tried by the jurisdiction is ordinarily limited to cases in English courts wherever the offenses were which a British subject is defendant and committed (see 5 Geo. IV, c. 114, ss. 9 and does not authorize the courts to entertain counterclaims by a British defendant against 10). 7. The act of enlisting or inducing. any a foreign plaintiff. Hart v. Gumpach, i 872, L. R. 4, P. C. 439. Imperial Japanese person to enlist in the military or naval ser vice of a foreign state at war with a friendly Govt. v. P. & O. S. N. Co. [1895] App. state, contrary to the Foreign Enlistment Act, Cas. 644. The orders now in force will 1870, if committed by a British subject be found in " Enclo. Laws of England," anywhere, ¡s punishable by the English Vol. V, at p. 430; and in the Statutory courts (33 and 34 Viet., c. 90, s. 4). See Rules and Orders Revised for 1898 and further as to this statute, Reg. v. Jameson 1899. We may give a brief analysis of [1896] 2 Q. B. 425; Dyke v. Elliott, 1871, a specimen of them — the Africa Order in L. R. 3, Ad. & EC. 381; The International, Council, 1889. The order itself will be found id. 321; Reg. i>. Sandoval, 1886, 56 L. T. in Stat. R. & O. Rev., Vol. Ill, at p. 259 (and 526, and see the " Salvador case" (L. R., 3 see "Law Times," August 5, 1899). The P., c. 2 18), under the Foreign Enlistment general limits of the order are the continent of Africa, with maritime and interior terri Act, 1819 (59 Geo. Ill, c. 69). torial waters and adjacent islands, excluding There remains to be noted foreign juris diction in the strict sense of the term — or Madagascar, since August, 1896, when the jurisdiction which certain foreign states it became a French colony; but the have consented by treaty, etc., to allow the powers conferred are only to be exer cised within local jurisdictions constituted British government to exercise within terri torial limits in which these foreign states for the purposes of the order (s. 4) by would otherwise have absolute power. This the Secretary of State's instructions (s. 5). The following places are excluded from jurisdiction grew out of the mediaeval Capitu or is in custody (24 and 25 Viet, c. 94,