The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1889-07-02
FROM NJ. TROMpSOAS DIGEST
OF HAWAIIAN SUPREME
COURT DECISIONS.
Admiralty Jurisdiction and Prac'
ticc.

lnlTulJy CUuIGS VI Ihlo SOuhViJ CIV
not bound to take jurisdiction of
controversies growing out of marine
contracts, between foreigners having
no domicile in this country, as they
are when the parties are subjects or
residents here, yet they may law
fully exercise it, and ought to do so,
or not, as sound discretion and
the claims of justice may demand"
The court, under the circum-
stances, declined to take jurisdic-
ton, renting the case dd foram
loci contrdctatS; the respondent filing
a good and sufficient bond to the
libellant for the subsection of the
libelled vessel or other property of
sufficient value, TO the jurisdiction
of the District Court of the United
States for the District of California,
to meet the libellant's claim.
Wetherbee VS.. Schooner "Golden
Gate" Haw. rs.
A service rendered by the libell-
ants to the respondents, on shoal
in the open ocean (outside the limits
of any state or government), held
to be a maritime service, cogniz-
able in Admiralty, and salvage
awarded, Philips VS.. Rawlins and
Fetters, 2 Haw. $50.
Although the general rule of law
is, that merely gratuitoUs services
afford no consideration upon which
to raise an implied promise of pay
ment, an exception is allowed by the
maritime law in cases Of salvage
service, on account of its peculiar
character. Ib.
1t is the duty of the courts of
this kingdom sitting as courts of
Admiralty, to exercise jurisdiction
in suits between foreigners, in cases
of special necessity, and in order to
prevent a failure of justice.
The court will exercise such iuris-
diction IN accordance with the gen.
eral well-known principles which
govern the Admiralty courts of civil
lied nations, and under sound
| judicial discretion, based upon the
circumstances of each particular
case.
Where the libel contained allega-
tions of peculiar injustice and long
continued injury, and the domestic
forum was in distant country
where it would be impossible to pro.
cure the testimony of witnesses, tc
deny its consideration would be 6
dereliction of duty to the laws OF
the sea, and virtual denial Of
justice, and the protest of the con
sui of the United States to the exer,
else of the jurisdiction, in such case
overruled.
BY PLAIN construction of the
twenty-first article of the French
treaty, the jurisdiction of crime:
committed on the high seas, as wei
as of marine torts, ''as causes o.
actions for damages" on the Adj
miralty side of the court, remains
as it was before the treaty wa
made,
A tort disconnected from and hav
ing no relation to the internal orde
of the vessel is not within the pur
view of the stipulation of the Frencl
treaty.
In the meaning and intent of tn
French treaty seaman, shippin.
on board of foreign vessel, doe
not become, by that act of shipment
citizen or subject of the nation t
viii CHI said vessel belongs.
TO give the consul exclusive cog
nizance of any tort or crime, com
mitted on board of any vessel of hi
country, while in the ports of thi
Kingdom, the contending partie
must be of the same nationality q
that to which the vessel belongs.
There is no such comfy of ma
tions as requires the approval O
consent of the foreign representa-
tive to confer Jurisdiction; ther
may be cases where such acquies
cence would he indispensable an
proper, and others where il is nc
necessary, from the inability of tn
consul to afford redress, and whel
a failure of justice would ensut
Enos VS.. Sowle, Haw. 1872.
/. In question of jurisdiction
the courts of this kingdom under I'll
2lst Article of the Treaty wit
France, the right of the court
take jurisdiction at its discretion,
governed as well by the gener
principles of maritime law as by I'll
provisions of the Article.
The approval of the foreign col
sui does not confer jurisdiction, b'
simply invokes, or assents to, IL
exercise of jurisdiction which is il
herent in our courts.
The jurisdiction of the courts
take cognizance of civil controve
sizes between foreigners is affecte
to some extent by the Frent
Treaty. But to render it necessal
TO have the consent or approval
the consul, that the court may tai
cognizance of the case, it is n,
only essential that the contendir
parties should be exclusively of Il
same nationality, but they must ST
be attached to the vessel by IL
terms of the contract of shipmen
If the complaining party has bee
al ln