PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE-LORD BROUGHAM LORD LANGDALE THE RIGHT HON. DR. LUSHINGTON AND THE RIGHT HON. T. PEMBERTON LEIGH.
ROBERT WIGRAM CRAWFORD - Appellant
Versus
RICHARD SPOONER - Respondents
On Appeal from the Supreme Court at Bombay.
Decided On : December 11 & 15, 1846.
Judgement
This was an action on the case, brought by the Appellant, (the owner, to the extent of eight sixty-fourth parts, of a vessel, called the "Genera Wood") against the Respondent, the registering officer of ships, at the port of Bombay, appointed under the Act of the legislative Council, No. X. of 1841; for refusal to register the ship, at that port. To the declaration, the Respondent pleaded, that the ship was not, on the 11th of September 1844 (the day named in the declaration, when the refusal was made), or before, had not been, or was then, entitled to the privileges of, or to be registered as, a British ship; and there upon issue was joined. It was afterwards agreed between the parties that the following special case should be stated for the opinion of the Court.
“In the year 1816, a ship was laid down, and in 1817, was completed and built at Damaun a Portuguese settlement in India within the limits of the Companys Charter (as those limits are defined by the 3 & 4 Vict., c. 56), for and as the property of one Manoel Pereira a Portuguese subject, and resident at Macao, who continued to own the ship, and navigate her, under the flag of Portugal, until the year 1824, when he sold and assigned the ship to one John Hudson, British subject, a master mariner resident at Calcutta.
"John Hudson owned the ship, and navigated her under the British Hag, until 1826, when he sold and transferred her to Francis Mendez, Portuguese, a merchant; of Calcutta, who, in 1827, transferred her to Antonio Pereira, also a merchant of Calcutta. The vessel was shortly afterwards transferred to subjects of Portugal, at Macao, and, in 1832, was transferred by them to John Burd, a master mariner, resident at Singapore, but a subject of Denmark.
"In 1833, John Burd had the vessel registered as a Danish ship at Altona, and, in 1838, he sold and transferred her to Mr. Henderson, a British subject and merchant, then resident at Bombay, by whom the ship was, in 1838, sold and transferred to Messrs. Jardine, Matheson and Co., British subjects, and merchants of Canton, in China, by whom the ship was, in the same year, re-transferred to John Burd,
"In 1841, John Burd sold and transferred the ship back to Messrs. Jardine, Matheson and Co., who, in the present year, sold and transferred the ship to Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, Sons and Co., British subjects and merchants, resident and carrying on business in Bombay, and who had since sold eight sixty- fourth par as or shares in the ship, to the Plaintiff in this action a British subject, residing in Bombay.
"The ship was navigated under Danish colours whilst owned by John Burd; but on being transferred to Mr. Henderson, a pass was granted by the Master Attendant at Bombay, under the provisions of Act No. XIX, of 1838, of the Legislative Council of India, entitled, An Act for prescribing the rules to be observed, in order that ships or vessels belonging to ports within the territories under the Government of the East India Company, or belonging to Native Princes or States, or their subjects, might become entitled to the privileges of British ships, under a Proclamation of the Governor-General in Council, in India, made in pursuance of the Statute, 3 & 4 Vict., a. 56. The ship was navigated under British colours, and it was transferred back to John Burd, when it was again navigated under Danish colours, and on being transferred to Messrs. Jardine Matheson and Co., a sailing letter of licence was granted to them by Sir Henry Pottinger, the chief superintendent of the trade of British subjects in China, under which the ship sailed with British colours.
“The name of the vessel has been several times changed, and it is now the ‘General Wood.
"The survey required by section vii. of the Act of the Legislative Council of India, No. X. of 1841, has been duly made by the Government officers, and the Plaintiffs, and other part owners, have also made to the registering officer the declaration contained in section v. of th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.