10. The Suppliants contend : That Lascars are not seamen within the meaning of section 210 of the That the provisions of that section with respect to the accommodation for That the accommodation for Lascars is regulated by the following provisions of the Merchant Seamen (Indian) Act of 1859 as amended by the Merchant Seamen (Indian) Act of 1876. [Provisions set out.] 11. The Attorney-General admits that the accommodation provided by the Suppliants for Lascars in their ships fulfils the requirements of the abovementioned sections of the Indian Acts of 1859 and 1876, but submits that for the reasons hereinafter appearing these sections are not applicable. 12. The Attorney-General refers the Court to sections 288 and 290 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. The Indian Act of 1859 was passed (as recited in its preamble) under the powers conferred by the former section. 13. In 1859, when the principal Indian Act was passed, the Imperial Merchant Shipping Acts contained no provisions regulating the accommodation to be provided for seamen and the spaces appropriated to their use. 14. In 1867 the above matters were for the first time dealt with by Parliament by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 124), section 9 of that Act containing similar provisions to those of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, above set out, namely, section 79 (1) (a) (i), section 210 and the sixth schedule part thereof. (a) That the Suppliants since 1867 have been and are now bound to appropriate to the use of Lascars the accommodation for seamen specified in section 210 of the Act of 1894 and the sixth schedule as part of that section. (b) That by section 265 of the Act of 1894 the provisions of that Act relating to the accommodation for seamen must govern that matter and not those of the Indian Acts. (c) That assuming Lascars are not seamen within the meaning of section 210, they cannot be regarded as seamen within the meaning of the sixth schedule as part thereof nor within the meaning of sect. 79 (1) (a) (i) and that from this point of view spaces deducted off the tonnages of the "Australia" and "Oriental" respectively in respect of their being occupied or appropriated to the use of seamen and as complying with the provisions of section 210 were properly disallowed on such spaces being occupied and appropriated to the use of Lascars which on the above-mentioned hypothesis are not seamen. 16. The Attorney-General further gives the Court here to understand and be informed that save as aforesaid he does not admit the several allegations in the Suppliants' petition. (Signed by the Junior Counsel to the Treasury.) Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. v. R., [1901] 2 K. B. 686; 70 L. J. K. B. 845. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. King's Bench Division. Demurrer. General Form. In the Matter of the Petition of Right of A. B. DEMURRER day of To the said Petition by His Majesty's Attorney-General for and on behalf of our Lord the King delivered this by the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury (Law Courts Branch) 276 Royal Courts of Justice in the County of London. Sir J. L. W. Knight His Majesty's Attorney-General on behalf of our Lord the King gives the Court here to understand and be informed that the Petition of Right is bad in substance and in law. Alleging Matter not to be Cognisable by the Courts. [Begin as in the General Form, continuing] in that it does not disclose a sufficient or lawful or any obligation on His Majesty towards the Suppliants or any legal or equitable right of the Suppliants against His Majesty cognisable by the Courts of this Country or enforceable therein and on other grounds sufficient in law to sustain this Demurrer. On a Claim by a Servant of the Crown for Salary or Compensation. [Begin as in the General Form, continuing] on the ground that the agreement alleged by the Suppliant whereby he claims to be entitled to serve up to the age of could not be lawfully made on behalf of His Majesty and that the said Petition does not disclose a sufficient or lawful or any agreement between His Majesty or anyone duly authorised on his behalf and the Suppliant nor any engagement or service of the Suppliant otherwise than at His Majesty's pleasure nor any right of the Suppliant to any sum of money salary allowance or pension or any claim of the Suppliant otherwise than upon His Majesty's bounty nor any award of His Majesty's Secretary of State in favour of the claim alleged and on other grounds sufficient in law to sustain this Demurrer. On a Claim for Damages for Breach of Contract (see also above, p. 405). [Begin as in the General Form and continue] on the ground that the allegations of fact contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the said Petition, the tender of the Suppliants dated and the letters of the Director of Works and of the Treasury dated and set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said Petition respectively do not constitute a sufficient and binding contract as alleged whereby the Commissioners for executing the Office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (hereinafter called the Admiralty) were bound to take stone belonging to the Suppliants to the approximate amount of tons or any quantity of such stone other than so much of the same as they should from time to time desire to take. Answer and Plea. General Form. [For title and preliminary words, see the pleadings on p. 402, above, where no demurrer precedes; and where a demurrer precedes, the pleadings on p. 407, above.] Sir J. L. W. Knight His Majesty's Attorney-General on behalf of our Lord the King gives the Court here to understand and be informed that the several averments and statements contained in the said Petition are not nor is any of them true in substance or in fact. Joinder in Demurrer. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. King's Bench Division. In the Matter of the Petition of Right of A. B. JOINDER IN DEMURRER. The Suppliant, the above-named A. B., joins issue upon the Demurrer to the said Petition of Right and says that the said Petition of Right is good in substance and in law. (Signed) C. D. Counsel for the Suppliant. to the Answer and Plea of His Majesty's Attorney-General. Your Suppliant joins issue upon the said Answer and Plea save in so far as the same contains admissions of matters alleged in his Petition. As to the Answer and Plea your Suppliants say that except in so far as the same consists of admissions they join issue. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. King's Bench Division. Rejoinder. In the Matter of the Petition of Right of A. B. REJOINDER. Sir J. L. W. Knight His Majesty's Attorney-General on behalf of His Majesty joins issue upon the Suppliant's Replication herein. [Signed by the Junior Counsel for the Crown.] Delivered by the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury (Law Courts Branch) 276 Royal Courts of Justice in the County of London. Change of Venue. Consent of Parties. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Queen's Bench Division. In the Matter of the Petition of Right of Messrs. Broadbent & Co. We hereby consent to the Venue being changed from Leicester to Middlesex and that the Petition be heard by a Judge with a special Jury at the instance of Her Majesty's Attorney-General. Dated the 23rd day of July 1900. (Signed) Solicitors on behalf of the Suppliants. (Signed) A. T. HARE, For the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of the A.-G. Petition to the Lord Chancellor. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Queen's Bench Division. In the Matter of a Petition of Right of Messrs. Broadbent & Co. of Leicester. To the Right Honorable the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain. THE PETITION OF HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL Sheweth as follows: On the 4th day of April 1900 the Suppliants presented a Petition of Right to Her Majesty praying for certain relief as therein mentioned. Her Majesty endorsed the said Petition "Let Right be Done." The place of trial chosen for the hearing of the said Petition by the Suppliants was Leicester. It is inconvenient that the said trial should take place at Leicester and on the 23rd day of July 1900 the Solicitors respectively for Her Majesty's said Attorney-General and the said Suppliants signed a consent that the place of trial should be altered to Middlesex. To this written consent your Petitioner craves to refer. Your Petitioner therefore prays that the place of trial of the said Petition should be changed to Middlesex accordingly. And your Petitioner will ever pray &c. Consent to Point of Law being set down for Hearing. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. King's Bench Division. In the Matter of the Petition of Right of Elizabeth Ryan. We hereby consent that the points of law raised by Sir R. B. Finlay Knight His Majesty's Attorney-General on behalf of His Majesty the King in his Demurrer to the said Petition be set down for hearing and disposed of forthwith and before the trial of the issues of fact in this proceeding. Petition of Right Suppliant v. Upon hearing the Attorney-General of Counsel on behalf of our Lord the King and Mr. of Counsel for the Suppliant This Court doth hold that the Demurrer by His Majesty's said Attorney-General for and on behalf of our said Lord the King to the said Suppliant's Petition is good and sufficient and doth order that this Demurrer do stand and be allowed. The King. And it is ordered that judgment be entered herein for our said Lord the King and that the said Suppliant is not entitled to any of the relief sought by her said Petition. By the Court. PART II. Petition of Right in the Chancery Division. Petition of Right. Claim to Proceeds of Real Estate and Residuary Personal Estate of an Intestate in TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. The humble Petition of A. B. of and C. D. of Your Suppliant therefore humbly prays: by their Solicitors That, notwithstanding that in the aforesaid Order on Further Consideration it was declared that Your Majesty in right of Your Royal Prerogative was entitled |