ISLAND LABOUR TRADE.

Samoa Times and South Sea Gazette, Volume 3, Issue 141, 19 June 1880, Page 2

ISLAND LABOUR TRADE.

IMPORTANT JU3GMIT Burns v. Noweix.—This cas which came before the Supreme Court r Appeal l at "Westminster on March lfl turned upon the construction of the pre ions of the Kidnapping Act, 1872, am a still larger and far more important iostion as to the legal liability of officer of the navy for acts erroneously, but ' nestly, and not unreasonably, done by icm in endeavouring to carry out an Ac of Parliament. It was an action byi shipowner against Lieutenant Nodi, of Her Majesty's ship Sandfly, foi alleged improper seizure and detentio; of the plaintiffs's vessal and cargo n the following oircumstanoes: 4- Th plaintiff, a shipowner, carrying \o n nisiness at Sydney, New South Wri a, was the owner of the brig Alrol. The Aurora, like other vessels mJagoJ in that trade, was employed \inon". the different islands in collecting to/toiseshell, copra, and other islan' produce, and in fishing for a kind I sea-slug called bechc-dc-mer. Native! of the island were generally employed to assist iu.the fishing, and as soon as afull cargo had been secured and the native landed at the islands where their hones were, the vessel returned to Sydney. , On November 29, 1871, some montrs before the passing and proclamation of the napping Act, 1872, the Aurora left Sydney on one of her usual voyages, and proceeded to tho Islands. At the Isljnds of Sinibo and Guadaloano, tho master of the Aurora engaged eleven natives, upon tho terms, among others that at the conclusion of the voyage they should be landed at the islands where they had their homes. The Aurora continued to be employed until August, 1873, when she made for tho Solomon Islands to disembark the natives, and on August 30 she arrived within four miles of the island of Simbo, where some of the natives were to be landed. Up to this time no one on board the Aurora had become aware of tho existence of the Kidnapping Act, 1872. When about four miles from Simbo she was hailed by the Sandfly, one of Her Majesty's vessels, nt that time under the command of tho defendant, and then and there seized by the defendant upon a charge of having committed an offence against tho Kidnapping Act, 1872. • Tho natives were removed on board the Sandfly, and the Aurora taken by the defendant to Cleveland Bay, in tiueensland, where her cargo was trau-. shipped to another vessel and carried to

Sydney, Theofficers and crew of the Aurora having been removed from on board of her, Mio v<*b W ] wnj j ,W„;.,...,1 1« CUvolaml Hay from October, 1374, till February, 1874. After the cargo had reached .Sydney a suit was commenced in the ViceAdmiralty Court on the information of the defendant, praying that the cargo ■ might be condemned as forfeited to Her Majesty; but the Court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff ultimately obtained possession of both his ship and cargo, and brought his action against the defendant claiming damages for their seizure and detention. It was tried before Lord Coleridge and a special jury at the Guildhall in December, [B7B, when his lordship left it to the jury to say whether at tho time of seizure and detention the defendant had reasonable ground for suspecting that the Aurora was employed in breaking the Kidnapping Act, 1872. The jury answered this question in tho affirmative, and his lordship' luereiipon gavo judgment for the defendant. The Queen's Bench Division having upheld this judgment and discharged, u rule for a now trial, tho plaintifi appealed. At tho close of tho arguments, the Court took time to consider their judgment, which was now deli vol od in favour of tho defendant, the officer, on the ground that he had acted—though erroneously—under an honest and real belief that tho vessel was engaged in contravention of the Act, though they held in favour of the owner and his captain that, in fact, it was not; and it will ho seen that all the three Lords Justices declared that " thoy thought it a very hard ease as regarded tho ship-owner." Lord Justice Baggallay delivered the written judgment of tho Court, and in doing so said that an officor should bo considered to have had reasonable grounds for suspicion if at tho time of the seizure ho reasonably believed in tho existence of a state of facts which in his honest and formed opinion amounted to the commission of an offonce, and that he was not to bo made liable for tho consequences flowing from an honest discharge of duty. From the evidence it was clear, and was not in dispute, that the dofondant believed, ani with good reason, in the existence of a state of facts which, in his opinion, not only authorised him to seize the Aurora, but imposed upon him a duty to do so; and that being the case, the Court thought ho was fully •justified in seizing and detaining the vessel. It was oloar that there would havo boon no offence under tho Act of 1872, but, then, taking tho Act of 1875 as coupled with it, they thought that to carry native labourers, without licence, to bo oinployed as those were, would bo contrary to tho Act. But tho quoßtion would romain whether thoy wcro being carriud by the vessol in contravention of tho Act, and the Court thought in the circumstances they wore not. The master of the ship in the circumstances took tho only propor course, and tho Court, therefore, cuiuo to the conclusion that tho

carrying the natives in these circumstances was not an offence against the Act, and that, consequently, the vessel at the timo of the seizure was not engaged iu commission of an offence. The judgment of the Court, therefore, proceeded upon thi» —that the defendant was justified as acting "in pursuance of the Act," he bona fide believing,and having reasonable grounds for suspeoting that an offenco against the Act had been committed, and that it was his dijty to act as he did. In conolusion the Lord Justice, having delivered this judgment, added that he regarded this as a very hard case upon the plaintiff, the owner of the ship, and he would have been glad to see his way to afford him redress. Lord Justice Brainwoll and Lord Justice Thesiger both concurred in this decision. —Auckland Evening Star.