ADMIRALTY.

2. It has no jurisdiction of any con-
tract upon land, and the general rule
is, that if a contract be made on land
to be executed at sea, or be made at
sea to be executed on land, the com-
mon law has the preference, and ex-
cludes the Admiralty, ib.

3. The cause must arise wholly on
the sea, and not within the precincts
of any county, to give the Admiralty
jurisdiction, ib.

4. The cases where the Admiralty
has jurisdiction by reason of the sub-
ject matter, and where the proceedings
are in rem, are a class by themselves,
ib.

5. The Admiralty jurisdiction as to
torts depends upon the locality, and
is limited to torts committed on the
high seas, ib.

6. Personal torts committed in the
harbour of Quebec are not within the
jurisdiction of the Admiralty, ib.

7. The Admiralty entertains juris-
diction of personal torts committed by
the master of a vessel on a passenger,
if arising on the high seas. The To-
ronto-Collinson, 181.

8. The jurisdiction of the Court in
cases of pilotage is undoubted. The
Phœbe-Raltray, 60.

9. It has no jurisdiction in cases
where there has been a previous
judgment of a court of concurrent
jurisdiction upon the same cause of
demand, ib. 59.

10. It has jurisdiction in relation
to claims of pilots for extra-pilotage in
the nature of salvage for extraordinary
services rendered by them. The Ad-
venture-Peverley, 101.

11. In suits for damage to a ship
by collision, notwithstanding the cause
of action may have arisen out of the
local limits of the court. COLLISION,
passim.

12. In matters of possession at the
suit of the owners or owner of a ma-
jority of interests in a ship to obtain
possession thereof. The Mary and
Dorothy-Teasdale, 187.

13. By 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 6, the
High Court of Admiralty has juris-

diction to decide all claims of salvage, and damage to any sea-going ship or vessel, and to enforce payment thereof, whether such ship or vessel may have been within the body of a county, or on the high seas, at the time when the cause of action accrued. The Mary Jane-Trescowthick, 267.

14. Ancient jurisdiction restored, by the same statute, with respect to claims of material men for necessaries furnished to foreign ships, ib.

15. It has no authority to enforce demands for work done or materials furnished in England to ships owned there, ib.

16. Nor has the Vice-Admiralty of Lower Canada jurisdiction with respect to claims of material men for materials furnished to ships owned there, ib.

17. The Court of Vice-Admiralty exercises jurisdiction in the case of a vessel injured by collision in the river St. Lawrence, near the city of Quebec. The Camillus-Baird, 383.

ADMIRALTY SUITS.

All Admiralty suits in the British courts are summary causes, and justice is administered levato velo. The Newham-Robson, 70.

AMENDMENT.

Practice, 8.

APPEAL.

1. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court of Admiralty from Courts of Vice-Admiralty, is by the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 41, transferred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 5.

2. All appeals from decrees of the Vice-Admiralty Courts are to be asserted within fifteen days after the date of the decree, which is to be done by the proctor declaring the same in court, and a minute thereof is to be entered in the assignation-book; and the party must also give bail within fifteen days from the assertion of the appeal, to answer the costs of such appeal, 44.

ARMSTRONG.

Captain Jesse Armstrong. See As

SESSORS.

ASHE.

Lieut. Edw. D. Ashe, R.N. See ASSESSORS.

APPENDIX.

1. Commission of vice-admiral, under the great seal of the High Court of Admiralty of England, to James Murray, captain general and governor in chief in and over the province of Quebec, in America, dated 19th March, 1764, p. 370.

2. Commission under the great seal of the High Court of Admiralty of England, appointing Henry Black Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court for Lower Canada, dated 27th October, 1838, p. 376.

3. Commission under the great seal of Great Britain, for the trial of offences committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, dated 30th October, 1841, p. 380.

4. Opinion of Judge Kerr in the following cases:

The Camillus, 383.

The Coldstream, 386.

5. The several commissions in con-
tinuation of the above commission of
vice-admiral down to the present time,
with their respective dates, 390.

6. The several Judges of the Vice-
Admiralty Court, since the cession of
the country to the crown of Great
Britain, 391.

ASSAULT.

1. As to the authority of the master
of a merchantman to inflict punish-
ment on a passenger who refuses to
submit to the discipline of the ship.
The Friends—Duncan, 118.

2. Assault and battery, and op-
pressive treatment by the master of a
ship upon a cabin passenger,-charge
sustained. The Toronto-Collinson,
170.

3. No words of provocation what-
ever will justify an assault, ib.

4. If provoking language be given,
without reasonable cause, and the
party offended be tempted to strike the
other, and an action brought, the court
will be bound to consider the provoca-
tion in assessing the damages, ib.

5. To constitute such an assault
as will justify moderate and reasonable
violence in self-defence, there must be
an attempt, or offer, with force and
violence, to do a corporal hurt to
another, ib.

6. In an action against the captain
of a ship chartered by the East India
Company, for an assault and false im-
prisonment, a justification on the
ground of mutinous, disobedient, and

-a

1. Captain Henry W. Bayfield,
R.N., commanding naval and survey-
ing service in the River and Gulf of
St. Lawrence (now Rear-Admiral
Bayfield). His opinion in the follow-
ing cases: -

1. The Cumberland, 79.
2. The Nelson Village, 156.
3. The Leonidas, 230.

2. Captain Edward Boxer, R.N.,
C.B., harbour-master and captain of
the port at Quebec (afterwards Rear-
Admiral). His opinion in the follow-
ing cases:

1. The John Munn, 266.
2. The By Town, 278.
3. Lieut. Edward D. Ashe, R.N.,
superintendent of the Quebec Obser-
vatory. His opinion in the following

cases:-

1. The Roslin Castle, and
The Glencairn, 306.

2. The Niagara, and

The Elizabeth, 316-320.
4. Captain Jesse Armstrong, har-
bour-master of Quebec. His opinion
in the case of

The Niagara, and

The Elizabeth, 316–320.
5. As to practice where nautical
skill and knowledge are required (Sir
James Marriott's Formulary, 159.)

ATTACHMENT.

1. Attachment awarded against a
master for taking out of the jurisdic-
tion of the court his vessel, which had

been regularly attached. The Friends
-Duncan, 72.

2. Application for an attachment
for contempt for resisting the process
of the court rejected; the statement of
the officer being contradicted by the
affidavits of two other persons present
at the arrest. The Sarah-Sinclair, 86.
3. Application for an attachment
for a contempt against a magistrate,
first seized of a seaman's suit, for
having issued a warrant, and arrested
the seaman whilst attending his proc-
tor for the purpose of bringing the
suit, rejected. The Isabella-Miller,

134.

4. Attachment decreed for con-
tempt, in obstructing the marshal in
the execution of the process of the
court. The Delta-Murray, 207.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
During the absence of the Attorney-
General, the powers and duties of the
office devolve upon the Solicitor-Gene-
ral. The Dumfriesshire-Gowan, 245.

BAIL.

The bail of a party is an incompetent
witness on his behalf Sophia-Wea-
therall, 219.

BATEAU.

See JURISDICTION, 12.

BAYFIELD (ADMIRAL).
See ASSESSORS.

BOXER (ADMIRAL).
See ASSESSORS.

COLOURS.

See UNION JACK.

COLLISION.

1. There are four probabilities un-
der which a collision may occur.
1. It may occur from the fault or
misconduct of the vessel suffer-
ing from the collision.

2. Or, the accident may have hap-
pened from unavoidable circum-
stances, without fault on the
part of either vessel.
3. Or, both parties may be to
blame, as where there has been
a want of skill or due diligence
on both sides.

4. Or, the loss and damage may

be owing to the fault or mis-
conduct of the vessel charged
as the wrong-doer.

In the first two cases, no action
lies for the damage arising from the
collision.

In the third case, the law appor-
tions the loss between the parties, as
having been occasioned by the fault
of both of them.

In the fourth case, the injured
party is entitled to full compensation
from the party inflicting the injury.
The Cumberland-Tickle, 75; The
Nelson Village-Power, 156.

2. Owners of vessel are not exempt
from their legal responsibility, not-
withstanding that their vessel was
under the care and management of a
pilot. The Cumberland-Tickle, 75.

3. Vessel giving a foul berth to
another vessel, liable in damages

for collision done to the vessel to which such foul berth was given by her, although the immediate cause of the collision was a vis major, and no unskilfulness or misconduct was imputable to the offending vessel after giving such foul berth. Ib.

4. In a case of collision between two ships ascending the River St. Lawrence, the Court, assisted by a captain of the Royal Navy, pronounced for damages, holding, that when two vessels are crossing each other in opposite directions, and there is doubt of their going clear, the vessel upon the port or larboard tack is to bear up and heave about for the vessel the starboard tack. The Nelson Village-Power, 156.

upon

forfeiture of half pilotage, is not compulsory, but is optional. The ship need not take a pilot if it prefer to pay the penalty or forfeiture. The Creole, 199.

10. The circumstance of having a pilot on board, and acting in conformity with his directions, does not operate as a discharge of the responsibility of the owner, ib.

11. Vessels are required of a dark night to show their position, by a fixed light, while at anchor in the harbour of Quebec; and the want of such light will amount to negligence, so as to bar a claim for any injury received from other vessels running foul of them. The Mary Campbell— Simons, 222.

12. Master may avail himself of the wind and tide, and sail into port by night as well as by day, ib.

13. Bye-laws of Trinity House, respecting lights, not abrogated by desuetude or non-user, ib.

14. The hoisting of a light in a river or harbour, at night, amid an active commerce, is a precaution imperiously demanded by prudence, and the omission cannot be considered otherwise than as negligence, per se, ib.

15. Bye-law of the Trinity House of 12th April, 1850, requires a distinct light in the fore-rigging "during the night," ib. in note, 225.

16. In a case of collision against a ship for running foul of a floatinglight vessel, the Court pronounced for damages. The Miramichi Greive, 237.

17. In such a case the presump