(Fees.) 8. Officers concerned in the administration of justice cannot take any more for doing their office than has been allowed to them by Act of Parliament. ibid. 9. Or, by immemorial usage, referred to by Lord Coke, in this instance, as in so many others, considered as evidence of a statute, or other legal beginning of the fee. ibid. 10. These principles have at all times been recognized as fundamental principles of the law and constitution of England. ibid. 11. The Court disclaims all jurisdiction in the matter of fees. The registrar may, in his option, require them when the service is performed; or he may give credit, and then his recourse, if they are not paid, is in the ordinary courts of the country. Ex parte Drolet, 2 Stuart, 1. 12. In the High Court of Admiralty the fees of the judge and officers of the Court abolished and salaries substituted (3 & 4 Vict. c. 66), 2 Stuart, 241, but retained in the Vice-Admiralty Courts. The judge's fees abolished by the Admiralty Act, 1891. 13. For table of fees to be taken in Vice-Admiralty Courts by the officers and practitioners, established by Order in Council of 23rd August, 1883, under the authority of the Act 26 Vict. c. 24, s. 14, see Cook, p. 372. 14. For table of fees to be taken in the Admiralty Divisions of the Exchequer Court of Canada by the officers and practitioners, established by Order in Council of June 10th, 1893, see ante, p. 527. FISHERY ACTS OF CANADA. 1. An American fishing schooner was seized by one of the cutters appointed by the government of Canada for the protection of their fisheries for being engaged in catching fish within the limits reserved by treaty and by the Dominion Fishery Acts. The evidence on the part of the prosecution was to the effect that, when boarded by the cutter, there were fish freshly caught upon the schooner's deck, and every indication of the crew having been very recently engaged in the management of their lines. The only evidence offered for the defence was that the fish had been caught merely for the purpose of food. Held, That the vessel should be forfeited, with all her tackle, stores and cargo. The Wampatuck, Young, 75. (Fishery Acts of Canada.) 2. A case very similar to the preceding, the only difference being in the evidence adduced. For the prosecution it was proved that the vessel was lying to in the very position for fishing; that the crews were seen casting and hauling in their lines, and throwing out bait, and that when boarded there were several lines over the rail, fresh bait about the deck, and other signs of recent operations. Held, That there was sufficient evidence to warrant a forfeiture of the vessel. The A. H. Wanson, ibid, 83. 3. The vessel proceeded against in this case was found by one of the cutters in the midst of a mackerel fleet, within the prescribed limits, and overhauled, but afterwards permitted to go; but, on further information being received, was seized, on a subsequent day, in an adjoining port. The only material evidence against her was that of the crews of two other fishing schooners, who testified that they had seen lines and bait thrown out from the suspected vessel, and that her men had continued trying for mackerel until the cutter came up. This evidence was further strengthened by admissions of the men going to show that they had actually taken mackerel. Held, That the vessel was forfeited. The A. J. Franklin, ibid, 89. 4. The treaty by which the United States formally renounced the liberty they had hitherto enjoyed of fishing within the prescribed limit of three marine miles of any of the bays or harbors of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America contained the following proviso: "Provided, however, that the American fishermen shall be permitted to enter such bays or harbors for the purpose of shelter, and repairing damages therein, and of purchasing wood and of obtaining water, and for no other purpose whatever." The J. H. Nickerson entered the bay of Ingonish, in Cape Breton, for the alleged purpose of obtaining water, etc.; but the evidence clearly showed that the real object of her entry was to obtain bait, and that a quantity of bait was so procured. She was seized by the government cutter, after she had been warned off, and while she was still at anchor within three marine miles of the shore. Held, That she was guilty of procuring bait, and preparing to fish within the prescribed limit, and must therefore be forfeited. The J. H. Nickerson, ibid, 96. 5. The following is a contrary decision. An American fishing vessel, the W. F., in November, 1870, went into Head Harbor, a small bay on the eastern end of Campobello, in the Province of (Fishery Acts of Canada.) New Brunswick. While there the master purchased fresh herrings for bait for fishing purposes. The vessel was seized by the commander of a Dominion vessel engaged in the protection of Canadian fisheries on the ground of violation of the Imperial Statute 59 Geo. III. c. 38, and the Canadian Statutes 31 Vict. c. 61, and 33 Vict. c. 15. An application was made by the Crown, on the part of the Attorney General of Canada, for a monition calling upon the owners of the vessel to show cause why she should not be condemned as forfeited to the Crown for violation of the above mentioned laws. Held, That the purchase of bait was not a "preparing to fish" illegally in British waters; that the intention of the master, so far as appeared, may have been to prosecute his fishing outside the three mile limit; and that the Court would not impute fraud or an intention to infringe the law in the absence of evidence: the monition for condemnation was therefore refused. The White Fawn, Stockton, 200. See note to this case. ante, p. 204. 6. A foreign fishing vessel illegally fishing in British waters within three miles of the coast of Canada, and not navigable according to the laws of the United Kingdom or of Canada, and not having a license to fish, contrary to the provisions of the Canadian Act of Parliament (31 Vict. c. 61, and 33 Vict. c. 15), declared to be forfeited. The Samuel Gilbert, 2 Stuart, 167. 7. A claim for a schooner, being a foreign vessel, and cargo, rejected, and forfeiture of them declared for fishing in Canadian waters contrary to the fishery laws. The Franklin S. Schenck, 2 Stuart, 169. 8. By sub-section 5 of section 1 of the Imperial Act, 54 & 55 Vict. c. 19 [The Seal Fishery (Behring's Sea) Act, 1891], it is enacted that "if a British ship is found within Behring's Sea, having on board thereof fishing or shooting implements, or seal skins or bodies of seals, it shall lie on the owner or master of such ship to prove that the ship was not used or employed in contravention of this Act." Held, That the words "used or employed" are not to be confined to the particular use and employment of the ship on the occasion of her seizure, but extend to the whole voyage which she is then prosecuting; and if the ship is found in the condition described in the said sub-section, she is liable to forfeiture unless the presumption therein raised can be rebutted by the owner The Oscar and Hattie, 3 E. C. R. 241. or master. FLAG OF TRUCE. 1. A vessel captured in violation of a flag of truce ordered to be restored with full damages and costs. The Zodiack, Stewart, 333. FLOATING LIGHT. 1. In a case of collision against a ship for running foul of a floating light-vessel, the Court pronounced for damages. The Miramichi, 1 Stuart, 237. See note to The Enrique. ante, p. 161. See Collision 164. FLOGGING. By an Act of Congress, passed September 28th, 1850, flogging in the navy of the United States of America, and on board vessels of commerce, was abolished from and after the passing of that Act. See 1 Stuart, p, 390. FOG. 1. An omission to ring a bell in a fog, covered where an anchor light was seen in time to avoid a collision. The Frank, Cook, 81. 2. The maritime law recognizes no fixed rate of speed for vessels sailing through fog. The Attila, ibid, 196. 3. Vessels should, however, be under sufficient command to avoid all reasonable chance of disaster. ibid. See Art. 12 of sailing rules. ante, p. 376. 4. See the case of The General Birch, Cook, 240. See Collision, 27, 67, 111, 112, 128, 134, 138, 153. FOG-HORN. 1. A Norwegian barque collided in a fog with an American schooner at anchor, on the banks of Newfoundland. A plea that the substitution of the blasts of a fog-horn for the ringing of a bell, as provided in the International Sailing Regulations, was done in accordance with instructions contained in a circular from the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, overruled. The Frank, Cook, 81. See note to The Paramatta, Stockton, ante, p. 199. FOG SIGNALS. 1. Rules concerning fog signals issued in pursuance of "The Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862," under an Order in Council dated January 9th, 1863. 2 Stuart, p. 301. (Fog Signals.) 2. These rules were adopted in the Province of Canada by an Act of the Legislature passed June 30th, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 13, s. 2, Art. 10), and re-enacted by an Act of the Parliament of the Dominion of Canada, passed May 22nd, 1868 (31 Vict. c. 58). ibid, p. 315; ante, p. 372. 3. They have also been adopted in the United States of America by Act of Congress passed April 29th, 1864, c. 69. ibid, p. 308. FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT. 1. Every ship or vessel fitted out or equipped in Her Majesty's dominions for warlike purposes against the dominions of a friendly state, without Her Majesty's license, with all the materials, ammunition and stores which may belong to or be on board of such ship, is liable to forfeiture under the provisions of "The Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870." See Vice-Admiralty Court. 2. Upon the representations of the Consul-General of Spain for Canada, an American vessel was detained and her cargo taken out and searched, by virtue of a warrant under the hand of the Governor-General of Canada, upon a charge of having on board arms and munitions of war, destined for the use of Cuban insurgents, contrary to the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870. Held, That the charges against the vessel were not supported by facts sufficient to justify her arrest, detention and search, and her release ordered. The Atalaya, Cook, 215. 3. Hearsay evidence under the circumstances not admissible. ibid. 4. The owners declared entitled to an indemnity by the Commissioners of the Imperial Treasury, under the provisions of the statute. ibid. 5. Costs in this case were allowed against the Crown. ibid. See Costs, 11. 6. Damages in respect of search and detention under the Act restricted to the natural and proximate consequences, and damages remote and consequential not allowed. The Atalaya, Cook, 260. See Damages, 7. FOREIGN SHIPS. 1. The ancient jurisdiction of the Admiralty restored by 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 6, with respect to claims of material men for necessaries furnished to foreign ships. The Mary Jane, 1 Stuart, 271. |