Since I began at Middle Temple Library in February, I have been slowly cataloguing the Library's House of Lords Cases. While this cataloguing will continue long after my work study ends, I consider myself lucky to see some of the specific cases I enter into the spreadsheet. As an American, I know little about English law, and next to nothing about 18th-century English law, so it is always nice to glean bits and pieces of information from a well-endowed resource like the Middle Temple.
In my cataloguing, I have come across many cases involving the Dutch East-India Company abbr. VOC. This Dutch company held a 20-plus-year monopoly on European trade with Asia. They were a major force in the world economy of the 17th and 18th centuries, however, their aggressive expansion efforts led to conflicts with many European countries including England. Ultimately they went bankrupt, but not before finding themselves in hundreds of court cases in the House of Lords and other European legal systems.
This specific case:
Captain Alexander Hamilton (Appellants)
v.
The Lords Directors of the Dutch East India Company, and Will. Drummond, their Factor, (Respondents)
Argues over a ruling in the seizure of a boat and its goods by the VOC in the Malaysian state of Malacca. A ship dubbed 'Satisfaction' arrived in Riau, Indonesia (spelled Rhio in the case report) on a regularly scheduled trading route. During the period Satisfaction was docked, the captain, Alexander Hamilton (no relation to the famed American politician and protagonist in the rap musical 'Hamilton') sent a smaller vessel to carry out additional, impromptu trade with Atcheen, in the Indonesian province of Ache.
The smaller vessel was set to go to Atcheen, when the King of Johor (spelled Johore in the case report), the region where the Satisfaction docked, requested that some copper be put aboard the smaller vessel and dropped off in Malacca on the way to Atcheen. The crew agreed and the vessel was loaded. As the vessel docked in Malacca and had the copper unloaded, the vessel's captain and owner Mr. MacDowall purchased opium from another ship that was passing through the Port. The vessel then prepared to leave Malacca and continue to Atcheen when it was unexpectedly raided by the police of the VOC. The VOC arrested the people on board the vessel and seized its content including; 18 chests of opium, 1535 pounds of sandalwood, 167 pounds of shellac, and 26 pounds of agalla-wood. When Captain Hamilton appeared in court, he claimed it was an unlawful seizure, but the Malacca judge, backed by the VOC, cited a new city order regarding illegal contraband.
It is worth noting that even under this order, opium was a grey area and if it was determined to be contraband the law would allow for the seizure of just the opium and not the entirety of the contents of the ship.
Upon the decision in the Malacca court, which upheld that the seizure of the ship was rightful, Captain Hamilton filed a petition with the Court of Admiralty in Scotland. The Scottish court maintained that ultimately the initial ruling was not possible due to res judicata, a decision handed out by a judge which places finality upon the decision and does not allow for re-litigation regarding the case.
The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Admiralty's decision that a court from one nation cannot label a case res judicata that has legal standing from beyond the country's borders.
This case was a fun one to read, not only did it involve opium on the high seas, but I also learned a new term for a legal principle. This is just one of the many cases I have catalogued at Middle Temple and I have no doubt there is more legal jargon and high-stakes cases to be seen.
Rozzie Schatz, Library intern from New York University
No comments:
Post a Comment