Year: 1861

thorough and faithful search of the vessel previous to
passing the boundaries Of jurisdiction taken any
other course which had eyineed careful and thorough
diligence in guarding against persons making their es-
cape, should have regarded II as a compliance with
the law. regard this liberal construction
of the statute than that of the Court the of Saw
yer Patty.


If the position taken by the counsel for the respon-
dent IS sound it would completely defeat all laws for
acts OF omission. When the law prohibits any act
board from being done, the literal construction
which can be given in its Interpretation is that the ut
most diligence and taken to prevent it This
law, which the Legislature took much pains guard
would be- with this construction utterly Ineffective Il
would not require much precau,ion self-denia on
the part Of the person drous Of escaping to conceal
himself till the vessel had passed out Of the jurisdiction,
and the master need never be compromised. This is
not the letter of the law, which is stringent is it
the spirit for that seeks to protect people against
loss by absconding debtors by the utmost vigilance It
Is sound in law it in ethics not leave undone
those things which ought to be done, as to do those
things which ought not to have been DONE Negligence
is often as fatal in its results positive act Of
mission. h. ats


regard the law clear and explicit in the one case
as the oher-both cvilly and criminally that the
former more frequently escape, inevitable from the
nature OF the evidence applicable to the IL is
necessary to discuss the different degrees Of negligence
requisite to create liability in criminal and civil cases
Ii there IS q difference it appears 6rlniadIitee.


1t Is conended further that the evidence must show


criminal intent to carry Webster of the Kingdom
In every instance of negligence by omission amounting
to crime, the rule of law this If the neglect was so
wful and gross to satisfy the jury that the death of
the party intended the crime is MURDER but if the
death was not intended but the result of careless
ness it is only mansaughter This principle applies
TO all that class Of cases where neglect to provide sua
Die care medical attendance provision, to those
persons whom it is duty to protect and for
ana which result In fatal consequences. So, if per-
son whose duty 1t IS to give the proper signal to rail-
way train in motion, whereby collision took place
and passenger was killed, although not intentional
stlll 1t crmlnabut in lesser degree than when will
fully and Intentionally done. If this is the law Grim
Inaltee, 1t IS otar cree, unless the negligence Of
the injured party has concurred in producing the result
Tor IN this consists the distinction between civil and
criminal proceedings. In this it appears that the
loeant took the legal steps to prevent passport be-
ing given, and none given there is no pretence
that he has done omitted do anything compro-
mise his rights. do not say that any thing in
cumbent on him to do, the master Of vessel pro-
moited from carrying person out of the Kingdom
who has not passport notice TO the Collector
to fulfill the requirement of the stat
ute. The simple question to person who applies for
passage, is have you passport if not, it is the duty
of the master to decline to take him. Ii is by lgal
that the intention of the Legislature must be
ascerained, and by careful reference to the whole
statute, It's clearly defined purposes and objects, well
to the specific section by which the liability is incur
red. And 1t would there could be no doubt
of the intention. This is the only Interpretation which
give effect to its different provisions And is it
not reasonable and in accordance with its objectss
When governed by the principles of construction which
have given it Is easily complied with. The salutary
rule which governs society," that all men should obey
the laws, and thereby impart mutual protection to
all its members. forcibly applies to it.


Let judgment be entered for the libelsnt for S64,
and costs. r..--....


Mr.. Montgomery and Mr. Harris for the plaintiff


Mr.. Bates for the defendant