Beak against Thyrwhit
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 87 E.R. 124
IN THE COURT KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS, EXCHEQUER.
[194] case 119. beak against thyrwhit. If a ship illegally trading in the East Indies be seized at sea and condemned as forfeited before a Court of Admiralty of competent jurisdiction, trover will not lie to recover her back after such sentence; but it must be shewn that the Court of Admiralty had competent jurisdiction.-S. C. Carth. 31. S. C. 1 Show. 6. S. C. Comb. 120. S. C. Bro. Ent. 69. S. C. Holt, 47. 1 Vern. 21. 10 Mod. 78. 12 Mod. 16, 134, 143, 246. 2 Stra. 1078. 3 Term Rep. 344. There was a sentence in the Court of Admiralty concerning the taking of a ship ; and afterwards an executrix brought an action of trover and conversion for the same. The defendant, after an imparlance, pleads, that, at the time of the conversion, he was a servant to King Charles the Second, and a captain of a man of war called " The Phoenix," and that he seized the said ship for the Governor of the East-India Company, she going in a trading voyage to the Indies contrary to the King's prohibition, &c. And, upon a demurrer, these exceptions were taken to this plea. First, the defendant sets forth that he was a servant to the King, but has not shewed his commission to be a captain of a man of war. Secondly, that he seized the ship going to the Indies contrary to the King's prohibition, and has not set forth the prohibition itself. It was argued by the counsel contra, that it may be a question, whether it was a conversion for which this action is brought? for it was upon the sea, and the defendant might plead to the jurisdiction of this Court, the matter being then under the cognizance of the Admiralty. But as to the substance of this plea, it is not material for the defendant either to set forth his commission (a) or the King's prohibition; he has shewed enough to entitle the Court of Admiralty to a jurisdiction of this cause, and therefore this Court cannot meddle with it; for he expressly affirms that he was a captain of a man of war, and seized this ship, &c. which must be intended upon the sea; so that the conversion might...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King v Captain Roche
...as he had been already acquitted of the charge by the law of Portugal, he could not be tried again for it in England. See Beak v Thyrwhtt, 3 Mod 194; S C 1 Show, 6. And the statute 33 Hen VIII. c. 23. cr. ca i -6* English Reports Citation: 168 E.R. 169 THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH The King an......
-
Beake against Tyrrell
...not appear that she was lawful prize; or before whose Court, or by what Judge she was condemned.-S. C. Garth. 1. S. C. Comb. 120. S. C. 3 Mod. 194. S. C. Bro. Ent. 69. S. C. Holt, 47. Trespass for taking a ship, &c. The defendant pleads, that he was a captain of a man of war, and that he to......
-
Anonymous (1726) Sel Cas T King 69
...in Portugal, and was indicted for it here on the statute ; he pleaded a trial and acquittal there, and held a good bar. [That case is cited 3 Mod. 194.] There are many cases in Boll's Abridgment, of sentences of foreign admiralties carried into execution here ; had I been to try it, I shoul......