Under the Act, 1863. the master entering into a written agreement to abide the decision of the High Court or a Vice-Admiralty Court, and giving due security, the agreement may be adjudicated upon and enforced in the same manner as the bond above mentioned, and the agreement is to be transmitted to the High Court in the same manner as a bond. This provision applies to salvage services rendered by any ship, whether a Queen's ship or not.1 The matters in which jurisdiction has been conferred upon these Courts by the Vice-Admiralty Courts Act, 1863, are claims: (1) For seamen's wages;2 (2) For master's wages and disbursements ;3 (3) In respect of pilotage; (4) In respect of salvage of life or goods; (5) In respect of towage; (6) In respect of bottomry or respondentia bonds; (8) Between the owners of a ship registered in the (9) For necessaries supplied in the possession in which the Court is established, where no owner 1 S. 497. 2 Apart from any enabling statute, a Vice-Admiralty Court seems to have no more extended jurisdiction than the High Court over policies of assurance, charter-parties, &c. Forsyth; Cases and Opinions, p. 94. (Opinion of Sir Christopher Robinson, Q. A.) 3 For wages, see also 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ss. 189-191. Under 8. 191 the master has a lien for wages in the Vice-Admiralty Court, whatever may be the municipal law of the colony: The Rajah of Cochin, Swa. 472. A suit for wages under £50 cannot be maintained in the ViceAdmiralty Court, by s. 189 of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104; but the Act of 1863 contains no such limitation. or part-owner is domiciled within the possession. at the time of the necessaries being supplied; (10) In respect of building, equipping, or repairing (with similar restrictions as to domicil).1 They have also jurisdiction in cases of breach of the Navy regulations, and of Admiralty droits.2 Unless expressly confined by the Act, jurisdiction may be exercised where the cause or right of action has arisen beyond the limits of the jurisdiction.3 The High Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Concur Vice-Admiralty Courts.* rent juris- Court. The Con The Supreme Consular Court of Constantinople and the High Provincial Consular Courts have the authority of ViceAdmiralty Courts.5 The Supreme Court has jurisdiction sular in the Ottoman dominions, a Provincial Court only within the Ottoits own district. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court man Em is both in rem and in personam.7 Courts of pire. a Vice Statutory provision is made for the appointment of Officers of judge, deputy-judge, registrar, and marshal of a Vice- Admiralty Admiralty Court.8 1 26 & 27 Vict. c. 24, s. 10. S. 11. 3 S. 12. It has also jurisdiction in revenue cases, &c.; 26 & 27 Vict. c. 24, s. 13; 36 & 37 Vict. c. 85, s. 5; see The Hercules, 2 Dods. 353; The Elizabeth, 1 Hagg. 226. 430 & 31 Vict. c. 45, s. 16; The Peerless, Lush. 30. 56 & 7 Vict. c. 94, s. 1. Order in Council of 12 Dec., 1873; State Papers, vol. 63, p. 59. For the jurisdiction before the Order in Council and the Vice-Admiralty Courts Act, 1863, see The Laconia, 2 Moo. P. C. N. S. 161; 33 L. J. Adm. 11'; Br. & L. 117; Hamilton v. Aquilina, 2 L. T. N. S. 90; The Patriotto v. The Rival, 2 L. T. N. S. 301. The existence of a Vice-Admiralty Court within the territorial limits of an independent State is an allowed exception to General International Law. See the judgment of Lord Stowell in The Madonna del Burso, 4 C. Rob. 172 (1804). 6 Order of Dec. 12, 1873; State Papers, vol. 63, p. 59. 7 The Laconia, supra. 826 & 27 Vict. c. 24, ss. 3-8; 30 & 31 Vict. c. 45, ss. 4-14. See Rolet v. Reg., L. R. 1 P. C. 198; 4 Moo. P. C. N. S. 41 ; for sufficiency of evidence of due appointment of a deputy-judge The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 59), s. 23, Court. Practice. Security for costs. Taxation of costs. The practice is at present governed by the rules framed in pursuance of the repealed statute 2 Will. IV. c. 51.1 The proceedings as nearly as possible should follow the practice of the High Court in England; thus, the form of preliminary acts should be the same.2 Security for costs may be required to be given in a ViceAdmiralty Court, or in default the claim may be dismissed.3 If a party is dissatisfied with the taxation of costs in a Vice-Admiralty Court, it may be reviewed by the High Court.4 1. The Judicial Committee. SECTION X. Appeals to the Privy Council. To this Court an appeal lies from the decisions of (c) The Vice-Admiralty Courts; 5 declares that the Judicature Acts, 1873 and 1875, made no difference in the power of the Admiralty to appoint judges and officers of ViceAdmiralty Courts. 1 And an Order in Council of June 27, 1832 (Rules and Regulations for the Admiralty Courts abroad). 2 Will. IV. c. 51, was repealed by 26 & 27 Vict. 24, Sched. B., but the repeal does not affect the rules framed under the repealed stat. 26 & 27 Vict. c. 24, s. 24; they remain until altered by the powers given in s. 14 of the latter Act. Powers are given by 26 & 27 Vict. c. 24, to frame new and alter existing rules. Proceedings against a vessel must be made under these rules, and not according to the rules of the Civil Law: Guimaraens v. Preston, 4 Moo. P. C. 167; 6 Jur. 879. Proctors may proceed in a Vice-Admiralty Court without exhibition of a proxy till it is called for by the Court. As to proxies generally, see post, Pt. II., O. vii., p. 160. 3 2 The Norma, 34 L. T. N. S. 418; and see also The Inca, Swa. 370. George v. Reg., L. R. 1 P. C. 389; 4 Moo. P. C. N. S. 287. As to the transmission of the proceeds of sale from a Vice-Admiralty Court to the registry of the High Court for security, see The Lady Banks, 1 Hagg. Adm. 306. 4 26 & 27 Vict. c. 24, s. 22. (d) The Admiralty Court of the Cinque Ports;1 (a) Appeals from the Royal Courts are either appeals From (a) the Royal proper or doléances, the latter being appeals or remon- Courts. strances in which the conduct of the Court below is com plained of.2 Where the ground of appeal is not the misconduct of the Court below, an appeal and not a doléance is the proper remedy. In all appeals from these islands, the respondents are to be summoned by the proper officer of the islands, to appear and answer the said appeals within forty days from the time of being so summoned. Where the Royal Court has refused to allow an appeal, a notice should be given to that Court after application to the Privy Council for leave to appeal, that the Court may be heard at the hearing in objection to such appeal.5 No appeal from the Royal Court of Jersey is allowed, unless the value of the subject-matter be £80 per annum.7 In Guernsey the appealable value is £200, and the appeal must be brought within six months from the date of the judgment complained of.8 For the origin of appeals to the King in Council, see Clark's Colonial Law, pp. 106 -121. Report of Royal Commission of 1861, p. liv. 3 Re Ames, 3 Moo. P. C. 409; see Re Whitfield, 2 Moo. P. C. 269 ; 5 Moo. P. C. 157. 4 Order in Council of July 15, 1835. Practice, 224. Belson v. Belson, 7 Moo. P. C. 30, Tupper's Case, 2 Knapp, P. C. 201. Macpherson, Privy Council dissenting from the note to The values above given are those necessary where the subjectmatter of the case is personal property. There is no special rule as to appealable value where the appeal is from the Royal Court as an Admiralty Court. 7 Order in Council of July 15, 1835. 101. Macph. P. C. Prac. App. 103. It is too late for a respondent at the hearing to take objection to the competency of the appeal on the ground that the prescribed appealable value was not involved, such objection not having been taken in his case. The proper course is for the respondent to move to dismiss the appeal on that ground. Aldridge v. Cato, L. R. 4 P. C. 313. K (b) The Isle of Man (c) The Vice Under the (b) From the Court presided over by the water bailiff an appeal lies, in the first instance, either to the Court of Common Law of the Island, or to the Court called the Staff of Government. From the decision of the bailiff alone it lies to the latter, from the verdict of a jury to the Court of Common Law. But jury trial in the Admiralty Court is practically obsolete.2 3 From the Staff of Government an appeal lies to the Judicial Committee, provided that it be brought within six months from the date of the judgment appealed from.1 There is no fixed amount below which an appeal cannot be brought.5 6 (c) Appeals from the Vice-Admiralty Courts were transferred from the High Court of Admiralty to the Admiralty Courts. Judicial Committee in 1833,7 and they are now regulated Vice- by the Vice-Admiralty Courts Act, 1863.8 No appeal is Admiralty to be allowed, save by permission of the judge, from Act, 1863. any decree or order not having the force of a definitive sentence or final order. The appeal from any decree or order must be brought within six months from the date of the decree;1o the petition of appeal must be entered with Courts Within what time appeal is to be brought. 10 9 1 Before 1866 the appeal in such a case lay to the House of Keys. In that year the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Keys was abolished. 2 See p. 123. 3 It was held early in the last century to lie to the King in Council: Christian v. Corren, 1 P. Wms. 329. Act of Tynwald of Aug. 11, 1736. Macph. P. C. Prac. App. 106. › Macph. P. C. Prac., ubi supra. For the general right of appeal from a Vice-Admiralty Court before the Act of 1833, see Forsyth, Cases and Opinions, p. 377. 7 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 41, s. 2. 8 26 & 27 Vict. c. 24. 926 & 27 Vict. c. 24, s. 22. A party denying the right of his opponent to appeal should appear under protest, and not absolutely : Macph. P. C. Prac. 204. 10 The Judicial Committee may nevertheless at their discretion admit an appeal, notwithstanding that six months have elapsed: Casanova v. Reg., L. R. 1 P. C. 115; 3 Moo. P. C. N. S. 484; 36 L. J. P. C. 3. Reg. v. Diaz, 6 Moo. P. C. 102, and subject to a counterpetition to dismiss the appeal. The provisions as to the time for appealing apply to foreigners as well as British subjects: Lopez v. |