THE COURT OF APPEAL.

Evening Star, Issue 3686, 15 December 1874, Page 2

THE COURT OF APPEAL.

Dodson t. Macandkew. The following were gthe reasons given by the Court for ordering judgment to be entered for the defendant herein:—“ The Superintendent cannot have acquired an interest in the railway and its appurtenances otherwise than under the provisions of the Immigration and Public Works Act, 1872. It has been contended that a quasi leasehold interest has been created, whicli is 1 property belonging to the Province,’ ■within the meaning of the Piovincial Lawsuits Act, 1858. But upon the largest interpretation in favor of claimants upon the Provincial treasuries which can be given to that vague enactment, this case does not seem to us to come within it. '’’here has, as yet, been no legal transfer to the Superintendent even of any power of management, much less of any estate and interest. The receipt of the rent of the refreshment room into the Provincial treasury has been relied upon as creating a tenancy between the parties to this suit. We are of opinion that it cannot so operate, even by way of estoppel. It is fallacious to treat the Superintendent as capable of binding, in any way, the revenues of the Province. by acts for which there is no legal warrant.”

In re. Dodd. —After the judgment of the Court had been delivered, Mr Jnstice Chapman is reported to have said:—“l felt such great doubts when the case came before the Supreme Court, that I debated with myself whether I should not decline jurisdiction ; but, after consideration, I resolved to send the case to the jury and reserve the point for this Court. After the trial I endeavored, without success, to find a case analogous to the present. It is true I found opinion, but judgment or dictum I found none. The question really turps on what is the jurisdiction of the Admiral? Loosely speaking, it is said it is on the high seas, but that can only be over the national ships. It cannot extend to foreign ships ; and I have so always construed the statute which confers jurisdiction on Colonial Courts. A ship is really for some purposes part of the territory of the State to which she belongs. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the Court had no jurisdiction over a foreign ship. And the 30 and 31 Yict., c. 124, sec. 11, seems conclusive. I therefore think the judgment should be arrested.”