« PreviousContinue »
communications he was released, but early in December the German Government delivered an ultimatum threatening bombardment of the town unless the Haytian Government within eight hours complied with the following claims :(1.) A salute to the German fleet by the Haytian flagship. (2.) A formal reception of the German Minister by the President of the Republic. (3.) A formal apology for the proceedings against Herr Lüders; and (4.) Payment of a sum by way of compensation.* The German vessels cleared for action, but all the demands were complied with with a promptitude even excelling that displayed in the Anglo-Chinese Incident of 1895. (See L. M. and R., XXI., p.78.) The case of Herr Lüders resembles in some respects that of the “Costa Rica Packet” (See L, M. and R., vol. XXII,, p. 188 et seq.), which was recently submitted to arbitration by the British Government. The semi-civilisation of Hayti, however, was, perhaps, sufficient justification in the present case for prompter and more forcible measures.
As regards the other experiment in Intervention in which Germany has recently indulged, the utmost that can be said of it is in the words of “Historicus," that “its “justification was its success.” Avowedly, the forcible occupation by German marines of Kiao-Chau was to take effect“ until the case of the murder of German missionaries “ in Shantung is settled.” +
The extraordinary claims made by way of compensation, involved, amongst other things, the erection of a cathedral at the expense of the Chinese Government. It now appears that Germany further demanded and has obtained a“ lease" of the occupied territory, practically amounting to a cession of Sovereign rights. This novel form of
* Times, December 7th, 8th, and gth.
+ See Times, November 16th, 17th, 19th, and 20th, and the declaration by the German Commander-in-Chief, Times, 6th January.
territorial expansion will necessitate a new chapter in future editions of International Law Treatises. It will be interesting to note its development.
The Behring Sea Award. The delay of the U.S. Government in satisfying the obligations imposed upon it by the Paris arbitrators, has, it is to be hoped, almost reached a final stage. In December last, the Commission appointed for the purpose made its Report, and unanimously awarded a sum of $464,000 to Canadian sealers for losses sustained by the various illegal seizures of their vessels between 1886 and 1897. This sum is exclusive of two small reserved claims, conditionally assessed at $6,000.* No actual payment appears to have yet been made.
Contraband. The case of Ruys v. London Assurance Corporation, 1897, 2 Q.B. 135, arose out of the capture by an Italian cruiser of a ship carrying a cargo of contraband arms and ammunition intended for the King of Abyssinia during the recent war. The shipowners gave to the underwriters notice of abandonment for constructive total loss. The ship was condemned by an Italian Prize Court, but was ultimately, on the termination of hostilities, restored to the owners. Collins, J., held that such restoration did not disentitle the owners to recover as for a total loss.
Divorce Jurisdiction. The question arising in Sinclair's Divorce Bill, 1897, Ap. Cas., p. 473, involved the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Le Mesurier v, Le Mesurier, 1895, Ap. Cas. 517, and is interesting as being the first formal recognition by the House of Lords of the validity of that decision.
* Times, 24th December.
In the recent case, the respondent and co-respondent did not appear when the matter came before the English Court, so that the point in Zyclinski v. Zyclinski, 2 Sw. and Tr. 420 (and see Dicey: Conflict of Laws, p. 276), did not arise.
The Foreign Jurisdiction Act. The right of a British subject to be tried for felony by a. jury of twelve men was held by the Judicial Committee in the case of ex parte Carew, 1897, Ap. Cas. 719, not to extend to cases coming within the Foreign Surisdiction Act. The prisoner had been tried for murder by H.M. Consular Court in Japan and convicted by a jury of five persons. The Court was constituted by Orders in Council made in pursuance of the first Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 6 and 7 Vict., c. 94 (now repealed by, but substantially re-enacted in, the Act of 1890). The Privy Council held that the Court was lawfully constituted and had all necessary jurisdiction to try the case in question. .
* * Jurisdiction over Foreign Sovereigns.. Some very curious and interesting questions arose in two distinct interlocutory applications made in the case of The South African Republic v. La Compagnie Franco-Belge du Chemin de Fer du Nord, 1897, 2 Ch. 487, and Times L.R., Vol. XIV., p. 65. The action was by the Government of the Transvaal, and its object was to protect a fund in which the plaintiffs claimed an interest. This fund was standing in the names of two trustees, one nominated by the plaintiffs and the other by the defendants. The plaintiffs' nominee died, and the action was brought for the appointment of a new trustee in his place, the fund in the meantime being paid into Court.
The defendants put in a defence and counterclaim, asking, by the latter, for relief under three heads : (1) Payment by the plaintiffs of three sums, alleged to be due in respect of the concession granted by the plaintiffs to the defendants for the construction of a branch railway in the Transvaal; (2) an injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from taking proceedings in their own Courts to avoid the concession and to expropriate the defendants' property, or in the alternative for damages; and (3) damages for libel.
The Court of Appeal granted an application by the plaintiffs to strike out the third head of the counterclaim. The ground of the decision was that even if the plaintiffs had been ordinary individuals and not a foreign Government, the counterclaim would have been struck out under Order XIX., r. 27, and probably under Order XXI., r. 15, and the plaintiffs would have been left to their remedy by cross action.
The defendants ineffectually raised the further plea that as such a cross action admittedly could not be brought, and as the Republic had submitted to the jurisdiction, the Court should, as a matter of justice, give the defendants the right to sue by counterclaim.
On a subsequent application to strike out the other two heads of the counterclaim, Times L.R., XIV., p. 65, the whole question was raised of the right to counterclaim against a Foreign Sovereign suing here as plaintiff. North, J., ordered both heads to be struck out, following the principle laid down by James, L.J., in Strousberg v. Costa Rica, 29 W.R. 125, that “where a Foreign Sovereign comes “into the Municipal Courts for the purpose of obtaining a “ remedy, then by way of defence to that proceeding (by way of "counterclaim if necessary), to the extent of defeating that claim, “the person sued here may file a cross claim .... “ for the purpose of enabling complete justice to be done “between them.”
Dicey (Conflict of Laws, p. 213) states the rule somewhat similarly, in these words : "If the counterclaim is really a “ defence to the action, i.e., is a set-off or something in the “nature of a set-off, the Court has a right to entertain it. “ If the counterclaim is really a cross action, the Court “has (semble) no jurisdiction to entertain it.”
The only point of doubt in the present case is as regards the first head of the counterclaim. So far as the facts are clearly reported there would appear to have been some ground for arguing that it fell within the scope of the principle laid down in the Costa Rica case. The funds in Court consisted of monies to be drawn upon for the purpose of carrying into effect the concession, and the counterclaim appears to have been for “sums due in “ respect of the concession.”' North, J., however, on the evidence, held that “they were not sums in respect of “ which the defendants had any claim against the fund.”
It will be recollected that in the recent case of The Imperial Japanese Government v. P. & O. CO., 1895, Ap. Cas. 644, a somewhat similar point arose, but was disposed of on other grounds.
Substituted Service on Defendants out of the Jurisdiction.
In Jay v. Budd, 77 L.T.R. 335, the Court of Appeal (Rigby, L.J., diss.) distinguished Wilding v. Bean, 1891, I Q.B. 100, and allowed substituted service upon a defendant who was within the jurisdiction at the date of the issue of the writ, but had left the country (though not for the purpose of evading service) before the writ could be actually served on him. It does not appear from the reports whether the case is one which would in any event have justified service out of the jurisdiction. Dicey (Conflict of Laws, p. 237, n. 5) seems to have taken the view expressed by Rigby, L.J., in his dissenting judgment.
English or Foreigo Assets. In Re Smyth ; Leach v. Leach, 77 L.T.R. 514, Romer, J., following Sudeley v. Att.-Gen., 1897, Ap. Cas. II, held that