THE CASE OF HUNT V. SIR

Timaru Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 2770, 9 August 1883, Page 5

THE CASE OF HUNT V. SIR

ARTHUR GORDON. (By Telegraph.) Wellington, July 16. At the Supreme Court to-day, the cate of Hunt v. Gordon was commenced, before His Honor Judge Richmond and a special jury. Mr E. Shaw, with whom were Messrs H. Gully, A. do B. Brandon, J. R. and E. T. Morrah, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Harper, with whom were Messrs H. D. Bell and Fletcher Johneton, for the defendant. Mr Shaw opened the case for plaintiff. He stated the action was brought to recover £8000 damages for alleged falao arrest and deporting the plaintiff out of Samoa. Walter •Tamea Hunt was a resident m the Western Pacific District, at Baaioa, and defendant, Sir Arthur Hamilton Gordon, was High Commissioner of the Western Pacific Islands. Although whether or not Samoa was m defendant's jurisdiction at the time m respect of which the action was brought, was a matter of law upon which His Honor would doubtless direct the jury. He also quoted from a speech addressed to King Malietoa of Samoa on the 27tb August, 1880, by Sir Arthur Gordon, m which Sir Arthur said he did not dispute His Majosty's right as an independent sovereign to tako such measures as ho thought fit, and said the need for thia clearly showed that Sir Arthur himself regarded Simoa as an independent kingdom. Mr Shaw next referred to an Imperial Act cntitloii tho PaciSo Islands Protection Aot 1875, ono of tha provisions of which set forth that Her Majesty may exercise power and jurisdiction over her subject* within any [elands and places of the Pacific Ocean, not being within Her Majesty's dominions, nor within the jurisdiction of any civilised power. The case of tbe plaintiff wholly rested upon the qucßlion whether or not Samoa was within tho meaning of that Act at all. If the jury, subject to His Honor's direction, found that the Act must bo taken as applicable to Samoa, then they must over-ride a vast amount of evidence which the plaintiff would present to them, and whioh would prove that for year a past Samoa had beeu recognised as a civilised independent tlile, capable of contracting treaties an dof adininisteringthelawto the full within its own dominions. The plaintiff's contention was that Samoa was a civilised power, and recognised to be so, and ho would show that the islands which constituted the Navigator Group, over which the King of Samoa ruled, bad been, so far as we know anything about the Pacific Islands at all, a civilised state. The Act, therefore, did not apply to Samoa at all, and coneequeutly tho Orders-in-Council purporting to be made under its authority and relating to tho Kingdom of Samoa were ultra vires. Mr Hunt first arrived m tbe Western Pacific Islands m 1877. Ho commenced business there and carried it on till 1878, when he left tbo Islands. In 1879 he returned and commenced business m Apia, tho chief town of Samoa, as agent, auctioneer and contractor, and was di ing a fair business. This business ho carried on till the 11th Marcb, 1880, when Mr Hunt was offered a position as Obief Secretary by King Malietoa. Thiß position appeared not to have been co* much a political one as a purely confidential one, a kind of Privy Councillor to assist the King m administering, apart from tha Legislature, the Government of tho Kingdom. Mr Hunt was accordingly appointed Chief Secretary to the King on the date mentioned, and his appointment -was notified to the Foreign Consuls. He continued to act m a moot energetic manner from that time until the 26th August, 1880. During tho whole of tlrat timo he was actively employed with the King, the Vice-King, and with the Captains of the English and Germ&n men-of-war cruising about the islands, and endeavoring to make himself acquainted with the wants of the natives and settlo their disputes. On the 12th Marcb, 1880, Malietoa was appointed King of tbe Islands, two drops of oil being placed on bis head at tho time of coronation m the orthodox fashion, and on the 13th H.M.B. Danae saluted His Majesty's flag and tbe salute was returned by the Samoan King's schooner. This was an acknowledgment on the part of England that the King was not only a king de jure, but also de facto. On the 15lh of May of the same year H.M.B. Cormorant arrived at Apia, and Captain Bruce was asked to convey Mr Hunt round tho islands, and it was suggested that some- membors of the two branches of the Legislature should tako this opportunity of going round the Islands. Captain Bruce consented, and the trip was taken. Two days after thia he succeeded m settling a difference with the natives. On the Slst May, Captain Bruce suggested that Mr Hunt should go m his vessel to au leland where he bad some business to transact. The business transacted about this time was very detailed, and he (Mr Shaw) did not intend to trouble the jury with it, leaving the plaintiff to tell his own story. Counsel then went on to refer to certain business transacted on the 18th June, 18S0, and stated that ovidence wonld be adduced to show that at that time the plaintiff was not a naturalised British subject, but was a properly naturalised Samoan subject. Mr Sbaw quotod from an Aot passed by the Imperial Parliament to show that a British sobjeat could renounce his nationality on becoming a naturalised subject of a " foreign State," and he thereafter regarded as a citizen of that State, and explained that tbe evidence of such a law was not generally known. Counsel pointed out that the jury would have to deoide the question whether at the time the alleged offences were oommitted Samoa was a foreign State, and stated that m the year 1880 it was looked upon by Germany and other Powers aa such. If the jury found that at the date of the imprisonment plaintiff was a naturalised eubjeotof Samoa, then there could not be the slightest doubt that Sir Arthur Gordon had no more control over Hunt than had the Khan of Tartary, and such being the case, tha plaintiff was entitled to receive damagos. Counsel read a copy of an Act passed by the Samoan Legislature on the 17th June, 1880, providing for the naturalisation of foreign subjeots, and stated that under that measure the plaintiff had become a naturalised subject of Samoa. Tbe Act had been passed through the exertions of Mr Hunt, who deemed it advisable to get such a law passed that he might avail himself of its provisions to become a sworn subject, and thus strengthen his position m the Islands. Tbree or four days later on Mr Hunt took tbe oath of allegiance at the capital, and on the 28th of tbe same month the King proclaimed him a Samoan subject. Prior to this Mr Hunt resigned his position of Chief Secretary so that he might be appointed to tbe office as a Samoan subjeot, and on the 28th of August, 1880, his formal re-appointment to tbe position wat made. Mr Shaw dwelt at considerable length oa the question as to whether Samoa was a foreign State, and intimated his willingness to adduce proof on this point if suoh were necessary. Assuming that m 1880 plaintiff was a British subject, he (Mr Shaw) contended that Sir Arthur Gordon had no right to visit Samoa and exercise his jurisdiction over Mr Hunt, and should therefore be cast m damages for undne exercise of bis authority. Counsel then referred to the steps taken by the defendant m the direction of deposing Mr Hunt from the position which he held, and read a Proclamation issued by the High Com-

mißsioner tutting a*ay his office (the salary of whirh was fixed at 3000 dollars a year) and j forbidding him to reside m certain partß of the Islands for a period of two yours. The jury were informed that the King had been several times importuned to dismiss Mr Hunt from his official poeition, but he persistently refuted to accede tomch requests, and eventually Sir Arthur Gordon took the matter m his own hands and deposed the plaintiff. The reason of this action was to be found m the fact that Sir Arthur had conceived a plan for governing the islands of the Pacific, and found it, necessary to remove Mr Hunt, because that gentleman did not look with favor upon the scheme, and was a great obstruction m the way of carrying it out. On bis arrival Sir Arthur Gordon submitted a draft of a treaty to tbe Samoam, which, if adopted, would have had the effect of suspending the Government for iix years, and would have given the High Commissioner for tbe time being everything he chose. That was, as a matter of course, not accepted, being absolutely scouted by the residents. On the 27th August, Sir Arthur visited tbe King and delivered an address, to which the Sing replied that he could not then give an answer, as he wished to consult bis secretary on matters therein contained before doing so. Sir Arthur responded that he was speaking to the King alone, and though Mr Hunt might be his secretary, he preferred that they should deal direct with each other. In the evening they met again, and Sir Arthur several times requested tbe King to dismiss the plaintiff m this action. The King replied that Mr Hunt was a naturalized Samoan subject and was bis own secretary, and more than that, was his adopted son. On the same evening complaints agaimt Mr Hunt were laid through the High Commissioner's private secretary, and the removal of plaintiff was again urged. Yet at this time Sir Arthur came to Mr Hunt and desired information from him regarding the financial position of the King. This information was denied. On tbe 2Sth of Auguit the request for Mr Hunt's removal was repeated, and Sir Arthur added if that were not done he would remove him altogether and send a man who was better fitted for the position. Mr Hunt was at once informed by letter that complaints had been made against him, to the effect that bis proBence m Samoa was dangerous to the good government of the colony. Sir Arthur Gordon further aiked him how he dared to thrust himself upon the Samoan Government, knowing, as he must have known, that he was there simply at the request of the Kiqg. The answer made was that Mr Huot had a right to sell his labor m the highest market, and that he had not forced himself upon tbe Government, having beon askod to takp the position whioh he then occupied, to which Sir Arthur replied that as a British subject he (Mr Hunt) had no right to do anything of the kind. In support of the assertion that Mr Hunt's presence was dangerous to the peace of the Islands, a document was produced signed and sworn to by one Graves, purporting to testify to the assertion. Then there were also complaints made that Mr Hunt was interfering with politios. Amongst others who lodged complaints about Mr Hunt waß the' I , Consul for the United State*, who assorted that the plaintiff in'tbis action had obstructed 'him m his duties. When the matter was looked into it was found that the charge of disturbing the peace of the country arose out of the fact that Mr Hunt had suggested the'appointment of a Commission to enquire into the manner m which foreigners bad acquired land m tbe country. Wbllinstoij, July 17. At the Supreme Court the case of Hunt v. Gordon was resumed.

Mr Shaw put m two letter) written m the Samoan language. Sir A. Gordon m one of those accepted Hunt as a naturalised subject, though ho afterwards denied he was aware of Mr Hunt being naturalised. That letter waa handed by Sir A. Gordon to Mr Hunt. The other letter wag from the King, addressed to three Consuls. Mr Shaw submitted that the order was bad on fire grounds. Mr Hunt was a naturalised subject of Samoa, and as there was satisfactory evidence of Samoa being an independent State, the order was ultra vires. JTbo order was bad on the face of it, commencing at n future date to take effect, and there was no power to do that. The order was ante-dated, and actually signed on a Sunday and served on a Sunday. Had the seal of the Court, and no urgency was shown. The order gave twdro days' grace. According to the Act of Charles 11. judicial AcU are void on Sundays. On the 6th September Hunt departed for Fiji, oroising the sea m a ship called Edith, and he arrived at Levuka. He had gone there to a certain extent voluntarily, before the order had expired, so as to obtain legal advice. The result of that advice was that Hunt was recommended to bring an action against Sir A. Gordon. That action was taken, and plaintiff wss nonsuited on a point of law. On the 16th December, 1880, Hunt returned from Auckland (which be had visited m the meantime) to Levuka. In the interval Mr Hunt wrote to Sir A. Gordon, and the Utter by his private secretary forwarded to Mr Hunt papers on which he said he found it necessary to issue an orderof prohibition. Mr Hunt made efforts t» get back to Samoa, but m consequence of Sir A. Gordon having instructed the Custom-house ofiioera at Levuka and other ports not to give a clearance to any vessel m which Mr Hunt was a passenger, he was unable to do so. In consequence of this order, though at this time (1881) Sir A. Gordon was not Governor of Fiji, the shipping egenti and shipmasters said they would be glad to take Mr Hunt as a passenger, but to do so would prevent them getting their clearances. As a matter of Fact Mr Hunt could not get a passage back to Samoa. Ultimately, on tho 25th August, 1881, the plaintiff did leave Levuka, the elearanoe being for Guam. In the meanwhile Sir A. Gordon had left for Wellington, and he issued an order from there ordering Hunt into custody, asserting that he (Sir A. Gordon) did not believe Hunt was m banishment at Levuka. On Sir A. Gordon's warrant Mr Hunt was arrested. Mr Shaw contended that Sir A. Gordon could not sign such an order iv Wellington. Mr Hunt was m this position. The only possible way he could test the order was by having himself arrested, so that an aotion for damages could lie against Sir A. Gordon. During Mr Hunt « absence the King had died, and tho now King was not favorable to him. The new King sent a message requesting to see him. He went and he found there the Chief of Police at Apia, who informed him thero was a warrant for his (Hunt's) apprehension, and that he would be arrested. Mr Boanlan arrested Hunt and lodged him m the lock* up at Apia. Mr Hunt appealed for protection to the King, who was standing by, as being a naturalised subject of Samoa ; but the Sing replied he could not protect him as he bad agreed with Sir A. Gordon not to do so. Mr Shaw submitted that Sir A. Gordon was liable. Hunt was deported by Sir A. Gordon's warrant, and there was no power to deport him, evea if be had power to sentence him to gaol. The deportation being at Levuka the order was bad, because Sir A. Gordon bad no power to deport to Fiji. Graves allowed Hunt out of gaol, but the moment the latter stepped outside he was arrested on a warrant of the High Commissioner and deported to Fiji. Hunt was put on board a ship at Apia on 16th September, 1881, after having been nineteen days m a common gaol. On arrival at Levuka the oaptain m whose custody Hunt was sent on shore and aiked what he waa to do with bis prisoner. The answer vraß he could allow his prisoner to go on shore, and as long as he remained m Fiji he would be a free man. Huut soon after made the best of his way to Wellington. If tho defendant had chosen this aotion could havo been com* menced a year ago, but he preferrod to go on a visit to London, where he romained, and his evidence was taken there. Another Commission had- also to bo issued to take evidence at Samoa, and the Commissioner had just returned after unheard-of perils by land and sea. Mr Shaw, at great length, drew attention to the faot that the evidence taken before the Commissioner was very different to having the witnesses m the box to be crossexamined. The questions put to Sir A. Gordon leading up to the answers wore put at Home as interrogations. Sir A. Gordon had a fixed desire, on bis parr, to have a partionlar form of constitution for that country, and that he could not accomplish so lons as Mr Hunt was there to advise the King. Sir sV. Gordon arrived m September, 1881, with his mind made up that he must

get rid of Hunt or tbere would be no peace for Samoa, from his point of view. Mr Shaw read extracts from Sir A. Gordon's printed evidence. It would be proved that two native witnesses who had given evidence m favor of Hunt, when brought up again and refusing to give contrary testimony, were locked up m gaol. The following is tho principal evidence of W. J. Hunt: — I was m busineee m Apia m 1877 and 1878, and had a trading station and veßfels running there. On the llth March, 1880, the Sing gave me an appointment, and I was confirmed on the 26th April following and approved by both Housee. I was Chief Secretary and Minister of Lands, and had to draft all the proposed laws, I had also to conduct all (the correspondence with the foreign Consuls. The constitution of 1880 was an original constitution, do other having been passed. It provides for the oxistence of Courts of law, and under it there was a Chief Justice at the capital and Judges m the various provinces. A treaty was made with the British Government on the 28th August, 1880 (put m), others being made with the German and American Governments, the German being made m January, 1879. There was a proclamation signed by the defendant, and dated August, 1879, m which he, as representing the Imperial Government, agreed to resume official relations with the Samoan Government. I endeavored to Becure peace m the country. When I wbs appointed on the llth March the Consuls strongly opposed my appointment. The King told me that the Consuls had induced a number of members of both Houses to oppose my appointment. Mr Graves systematically opposed me. I wrote a letter to him on the 21st June, 1880, and got an answer on the same day. Tho result of this correspondence waa that I was dissatisfied. I received a letter from Mr Graves, referring me to previous correspondence on the subject of my dismissal. On the afternoon of Saturday I took an oath of allegiance to the King, and received a certificate Bigoed by the King on the 23rd Jane. The King instructed his private secretary to write to other Consuls to inform them that I had taken the oath of allegiance, and that I was a recognised citizen of Samoa. A letter was sent originally m the Samoan language, but translated. A reply, dated the 25th June, was sent to the King, acknowledging the receipt of the letter. On the 18th June I received a fresh appointment as Samoan Chief Secretary and Minister of LanH«, which I retained until tl.p 28th rVpfember. Sir Arthur Gordon arrived at ou the 'Zoun August, 1830. I waß present at tho King's house when the ratification of the treaties waa exchanged. On the 27th August Sir Arthur Gordon made a speech, m which he said to the King that ho did not for one moment dispute his right as an independent Bovoreign, and that he could take what measures be saw fit m reference to the rebels. This speech was reported m the Samoan Times, the pipers being supplied with, it by Sir Arthur Gordon's aide-de-ramp. Sir Arthur Gordon desired the King to visit him, and the King replied that be should do so on the following morning. He then instructed his interpreter to introduce me to Sir Arthur Gordon, who thereupon jumped up and said be would not recognise ma m any official capacity. On tho tame day Mr Romany, Private Secretary to Sir Arthur Gordon, came to mo and told me that a charge bad been laid against me for disturbing the peace of the islands. I replied that I could not be doing that, as I had the confidence of the King and both Houses of Parliament. During the interview with Sir Arthur Gurdonl showed him a letter from the King to myself, denyingtbat I waadangerousto the country. I bad desired the King to write the letter. He made no answer to me on the subject. I denied the accusation brought against me iv the letter I sent to Sir Arthur Gordon, also informing him that if any further denial wore required it would be Bupplied by the King and members of the Legislature. Mr Graves told me that Sir Arthur Gordon had arranged for an interview with tke three Consuls. I attended, and fount Sir Arthur Gordon and the three Consuls present. I stated to the Consuls that I was quite willing to co-operate with them m anything that was for the benefit of Samoa. At 5 p.m. the Court adjourned until tomorrow morning. WELLntOTON, July 18. In tbe case of Huntv. Gordon, tbe plaintiff continued his evidence as follows :— Referring to the interview at the British consulate, the witness said— After it had ended Bir A. Gordon desired him to remain. He did so, had a conversation with defendant, who stated that he reoognised tbe power which he (Hunt) had over the King, and considered it advisable thut he should cease any connection with his Majesty. Sir A. Gordon expressed the opinion that although he (witness) might bo deposed from his position, he would ■till rule the country from his private office. Witness pointed out to the High Commissioner that on tho ons band he reoogniaed him as an officer of the Government m consequence of his official correspondence, and on tbe other would not recognise him as such. Bir Arthur replied that he recognised witness as the Chief Secretary of Samoa. The Private Secretary handed to the defendant the prohibition order m reference to witness, and Sir A. Gordon signed it, remarking that he would leavo instructions with the British Consul to arrest witness if he disobeyed the order. Sir Arthur further mentioned that a man-of-war would return to Samoa m course of a month, and if witness was then m the oountry he would be forcibly removed, and placed m prison for a ample of years. Witness then went to the King, who advised him not to take any notice of Sir Arthur's threats. Witness saw that the attempt to arrest him would lead to collision between the men-of-war Bailors and the Samoan troops, and he deemed it advisable to go to Fiji and seek legal advice on the question of naturalisation. The King gave him permission to visit Fiji for the purpose, and promised not to fill up tbe office during his absence. The Cormorant arrived at Levuka while witness was tbere, being en route for Samoa to removo him, m the event of his being m that oountry. Captain Bruce mot him m the streets of Levuka a day after the vessel arrived, and told him that if the Samoans had refused to surrender him, he (Captain Bruce) would have bombarded the town. Witness was kept m prison for nineteen days. He was only allowed an hour a day for exercise, being looked up for twentv-threa hours out of twenty-four hours. For the first two days, he was allowed six biscuits a day and as much water as he could drink. At the end of the secoud day be complained about this treatment, and the Consul graciously allowed him a meal a day, whioh was brought up from the hotel. On tbe 21th he was informed that he was about to be removed to Fiji, and be at once wrote protesting against suoh step, on the ground that he waa a. naturalised Samoan subject. Witness was conveyed on board a schooner by Inspector Scanlan. Tbe captain told witness that be (Hunt) was his prisoner. Witness asked him for his authority, and the master declined to comply with his request. The vessel arrived m Fiji on the 3rd of the next month, about nine m the evening. The Inspector of Police (Mr Fowler) came on board, and instructed tbe captain to allow witness to go at large, explaining that the object of liia arrest had simply been his romoval from SAos. Witness waß then released, and instituted proceedings against the High Commisiioner. In 1880 witness was the possessor of a block of land id Samoa. Tho land had cocoanuts growing thereon, and had ho not been removed from Samoa he would have turned a good deal of money m cultivating his produce. His salary as Chief Secretary was 3000dols (equal to £600) a year. There was nothing m the nature of bis poeitidn which wonld have prevented him from carrying on prlwte business, and it waß his intention to have resumed the occupation of an auctioneer, 4c. He had Bent for one of his brothers to assist m tho business. Such business wonld be worth about £400 or £500 ajear. In cross-examination, the witness said that the German people claimed 20,000 aores m Samoa. An American company and a number of foreigners also claimed a large quantity of land. A portion of the territory of Samoa was called tbe municipality of Apia, and had not been ceded to any Power. Courts of Justice were m existence m 1877, tbe Judges being appointed and the Government republican. The present constitution was made i> 1875 at the instance of Colonel

\S'einberger, who filled the position of Prime Minister of Samoa. This person was afterwards removed by H.M.S. Barracouta. The first year Samoa possessed a 'constitution was m 1873, when there were two Kings m that year. There was no neutral territory, and there were also no treaties. Unier* the present constitution there waß one King and two Houses of Parliament. All tbe treaties m existence were formed subsequently to 1873. In 1878 an American named Corcoran committed a deliberate murder at Apia, and although he had been found guilty, it was decided to send him to the United State* to be tried. A similar case had occurred previously, when the United States authorities liberated a prisoner on the greund that the; bad no authority to try anyone for crime committed m another country. The European inhabitants held a publio meeting, at whioh it was decided to bang Corcoran. This was carried out, and tbe only active part taken by witness w that he got the Chairman to take a ballot after the show of hands, and afterwards stayed with the prisoner whilst a clergyman was tent for. He was tried before Judge Gome for conspiracy to murder Corcoran, and found guilty, and seatenced to twelve months' imprisonment, but received the Queen's pardon dated at St. James on the 21st October, 1878. In addition to the above he was presented with an addresß by European residents at Apia. Mr Shatr intimated that he would not oall any more witnesses, but would rely on the evidence taken by Commission, wbioh he suggested might be read over slowly to the jaryMr Harper thought that doing this would fit m with an application for a nonsuit which he intended to make. His Honor thought that time would perhaps be saved by this course. The Court then adjourned till ten to-morrow morning. July 19. . At the Supreme Court to-d»y, m the case of Hunt v. Gordon, counsel agreed to accept the evidence taken on commission, and tbe jury were allowed to retire until 2 p.m., their presence until that hour being considered unnecessary. Mr Harper, tbe leading counsel for the defonce, contended that evidence had not been adduced by tbe plaintiff to show that he was entitled to recover damages by reason of the causes of defendant's action. He submitted that the evidence did not show that defendant had not done anything he was enullcJ to do by virtue of his office, and contended that tbe powers given the High Commissioner allowed him to exerciee bis discretion m matters concerning the peace of the Islands over which he bad control. The Pacific Islanders Protection Act of 1875 gave very arbitrary powers to the High Commissioner, and he (Mr Harper) held that tho aotion taken by Sir A. Gordon was fully m accordance with those powers. With regard to the assertion that the prohibition order had been signed and served on Sunday, counsel submitted that the evidence was not conclusive on the point. Under the Order m Council no service was, he contended, required, Mr Harper quoted from evidence given on commission by Sir Arthur Gordon to show tbat no mention was mads of the date, and submitted that there was nothing to show that the order waß not made on tbe previous, day (Saturday). As to the plaintiff being a naturalised Samoan subject, he held that be could not show that Samoa was capable of granting naturalization to a British subject, and that Samoa wss an independent State, and tbat tbe plaintiff could not recover damage for any such act &b the defendant was alleged to have performed. A foreign Btate was one, that had been received m the family of States, and acknowledged to be capable of forming treaties and making peace and .war. He instanced the caße of the Cherokee Indians, m Georgia, United States, who were granted a degree of independence, but could enter into no relations with any nation outBide tbe United States. In the Treaty of 1879 the supposed foreign.^ State of Samoa willingly allowed the establishment of a British Court of law within its boundaries and any summons from that Court to either British or Samoan subjects had full force under this Treaty as if the State were ■ a British colony. They next came to. the convention entered into with regard to a municipality of Apia. The Municipal Board there consisted of foreign OonsuU resident m the place, who had full power, even to the appointment of a magistrate to try offences against its regulations, All this was independent of the Samoan Legislature/Convention, or Boards. Prince Bismarck had shown that the so-called Legislature had allowed a foreign Power (Germany) to dictate to it. His Honor pointed out that the Bismarck Convention was not one' with a Foreign Power at all, but simply an attempt to establish peace between chiefs who -were at war one with the other. '

Mr Harper referred to the count setting forth tbat tbe defendant bad acted illegally ia signing the warrant for the .plaintiff 's arrest m Wellington, and argued that he had a right to sign it anywhere. His Honor disallowed the application for a nonsuit. . ' ; -

On re-a»sembling, the jnry were .further relieved from attendance till 10 a.m.. the following day. ; Mr Bhaw said the purport of his learned friend's application was to remove the cue from the jury altogether. The facts of the case bad been brought to a pleader some eighteen months ago by a layman, who bad to state bis case as beat he could. If, under the circumstances, tbe counts were not quite so clear as might be desired, he would a9k Hii Honor to take a broad view of tbe subject) and not allow justice to be defeated by mere technicalities. They would rest their -case on two points, namely, that Samoa was Dover under the "Western Paciflo Protection Act at ail, and, secondly, that Samoa is an independent and civilised power. He bad yet t j learn that a nation was not civilised because it was black. The inhabitants were, he believed, very black, 'and so were the Egyptians, yet no one would deny that they ranked as a' State. He quoted authorities to show that Samoa came within the meaning of the term. "Foreign State," and Great Britain had conoluded treaties for dealing with its subjects m China, Japan and Turkey, that with the latter being almost identical with that concluded with Samoa. Mr Bell, after further argument, replied, and His Honor having intimated that be should reserve his deoision on the pointa of law, the Court adjourned till 10 o'clock the following day. Wblxinoton, Jnly 20. In the Hunt v. Gordon case, the jury brought m a verdiot for the plaintiff for £100, and added a rider to the effect that they regretted so many issues had been withdrawn from them, as otherwise they wonld have swarded much more substantial damages.