The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1849-11-01
Imnortant Maritime Case.

In the United States district court, before Judge
Kane, on Saturday, the case of Orr us The British
brig Achsah, came up. The libel in this case was
for wages under contract, made at Sunderland,
England, by the Gbellant, to perform voyage to
the United States and return. plea to the juris-
dcton filed by Thomas Allibone, intervening
for the owners on the ground that the proceedings
bad not the sanction of the British consul. The
libellant supported his claim, first, the ground
that the voyage had been broken up by the arrest
of the vessel Second, that he had been discharged
from the vessel by the British consul, on account of
the ill usage received during the voyage hither.
Kane, judge-The plea to the jurisdiction must
be dismissed. There appears to be very erroneous
impression out of doors as to consular rights in mat
tiers of this kind Consuls can neither confer nor
take away jurisdiction of this court The contract
is a maritime one, and it is competent for a court
sitting in any country to decide upon it. II II APP
peared from the pleadings in evidence that Justice
could not be done here effectually, between the
parties, it might be in their home country, then
that national comfy which is recognised in every
country, upon principles of public policy, would
require that parties be referred their home
tribunal unless the consul of their station should
ask an adjudication here; but II has always been
held that where the vessel is within the jurisdiction
of the court, and the voyage has been broken up,
the sesmen discharged, the court within whose
jurisdiction the property is, will adjudicate the case;
and this, although the consul OF the foreign nation
may not consent or even should object. Should
court refuse to exercise such jurisdiction,
ifest injustice would arise, by master having the
power to discharge seamen while absent from their
home, pennyess, and without the means of redress.
Judicially, acquainted with consular
courts, and if such exist, by the laws of foreign
tons, their DEGREES not recognised, they
be enforced in this any other country. In those
cases where consul is permitted to intervene and
object ii Is done a matter OF grace, and not as a
matter Of right; and because the foreign tribunal,
believing that more ample justice can be done in
the home courts, will refer the parties their home
tribunals In all real actions of the civil law, the
proper form is the locus rel situe Ii would be UNI
Just in this TO send the ibellant home ~ seek
redress when the vessel, against every plank Of
which he has the first claim, may be kept here and
distributed among creditors. The refusal to hear
his case or the refusal of English court TO hear
a similar from this country, would be disre
gard of that national comfy which should always
be recognised, nasmuch il would be denying a
party the best Of obtaining his legal rights.
IL has been the universal practice Of the
10 exercise this jurisdictions and, in doing it, they
have been rendering bat justice to American
men. Except this court, in this instance, had power
put the master under obligation TO return TO this
country and take with him the vessel and witnesses
necessary support the libelant's case, which can
not be- denied, manifest injustice would be done
libellant There is question but that justice can
be done here efectually than by reference to
the home tribunal.--Phild. ". american.