NAVAL COURT RE CANTERBURY

Samoa Times and South Sea Gazette, Issue 9, 1 December 1877, Page 3

NAVAL COURT RE CANTERBURY

TO TIIK EDITOR OF THK SAMOA TIMES. Sin, —I will feel obliged by your inserting in your valuable paper, my protest against the decision of the Naval Court, which protest. 1 presented to H. B. M. Acting Consul, and which Mr. Cornwall declined to protest, as he said that it would annul the decision of the Court; and also a letter from Captain G-. W. Coote. It is needless for me to comment on the decision of the Naval Court, suffice it to say, that Captain Coote s letter, and my protest clearly show, that the judges were not impartial, and that they did not uphold British Law. 1 am, &c, W. J. Hunt. [protest in hi: Canterbury.] By the public instrument of protest, hereinafter contained, be it known, and made manifest unto all people, that on the twenty-sixth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and seventyseven, personally came and appeared before Frank Cornwall, Esq., H.B.M. Acting ('omul for the Navigator's Islands, at Apia, Walter James Hunt, of Apia, in tin- said Navigator's Islands, who did solemnly, and sincerely declare and state as follows, that is to say : That on the 24th day of November n Naval Court was hJld tit H. B. M. Consulate, at Apia, to test the legality, and validity of the sale of the schooner Canterbury, and cargo, at Pago Pago harbor, in the said Navigator's Islands, at which said Court declared the said sale to be valid, and legal. That the said rinding of the said Naval Court is unjust, and improper, and in contravention of British and Maritime Laws, for the reasons hereinafter stated, that is to say— That the British Sh'pping Law, and the Law Maritime declare, that to render legal the sale of a ship by a shipmaster, and in order to give a valid title to the purchaser, there must be the most extreme and urgent necessity for such sale, caused by a want of repairs, .without which it would be impossible to navigate the. ship, either to her port of destination, or back to her owners, and on the utter impossibility of procuring such repairs ; and after all expedients fail, the sale must be conducted with perfect fairness, and honesty, and for the benefit of all concerned. That the evidence taken at such Naval Court showed, that there was no authority given by the owner to the master to sell the vessel. That it was possible to navigate the ship to the port of Apia, and that such was afterwards j "> ...t~i,y, and the repairs necessary were made without difficulty before the sale of the said vessel. That such sale was not conducted with good faith, or for the benefit of all concerned, but was designedly conducted at such a place, and in such a manner by the master as to preclude the possibility of any benefit arising therefrom to the owner, and mortgagees of the said vessel, and with the deliberate desire of defrauding the said owner, and mortgagees. That the sale of the cargo was illegal, as the law declares, that the authority of the master to sell depends on the same principles as his right to sell the ship, and it must be shown that the sale was made under the moat absolute necessity, and in perfect good faith, and that it was for the benefit of all parties concerned therein; and the evidence shows, that the said sale was without urgent necessity, and with the entire absence of good faith, and to the damage of the owner. That the said vessel is under mortgages amounting in all to £SOO, and that no binding sale can bo made of the aaid vessel save by tho mortgagees. That the said Naval Court was not impartial and guided by a spirit of justice, is shown from the fact, that the

judges allowed the alleged pucfcaaer t.i call wllnntfM. ami refused to allow the inprwror to call witnesses nil lii-. Uhalf. Therefore, ami for such reasons as the >ai<l inwrtt may hereafter submit, or allege, he the said appearer as owner of the said schooner, ana for ami on behalf of the mortgagees, and of all persons who are or may !*• interested in toe said schooner, goods ami pierehandiie, doth hereby protest against the said decision of the Naval Court, and the acts of all persons responsible for, or of all persons or officials who may uphold or approve of the said decision ; and I do hold ihein and every of them responsible, and liable for all damage, injury, loss, costs, ami expenses incurred or sustained, or which may hereafter be incurred or sustained by reason of the said decision, or the upholding or the approval thereof, and every matter incident thereto.

This done, declared, and protested in due form of law at Her B. M. Consulate, at Apia, the day and year first above written. W. J. HfNT. Apia, November 20, 1877 Mr. W. J. Hunt, Matafele. Sin, —In reference to your inquiry whether the Judges on the Naval Court went itito the law of the ease, I may state, that they never took the law into consideration, but arrived at the decision on the evidence brought before them. I may also state, that I deprieate the action of my brother judges in refusing to allow you to call witnesses on your behalf, or permit you to make a statement in your own defence. I am sir, Yours faithfully, Signed: O. W. COOTE, Master " Reconnaissance." One of the Judges of the Naval Court.