1828. The KING V. NUNN. Platt, contrà. The place in which the prisoner was arrested and detained was within the jurisdiction both of the justices for the borough of Ipswich, and of the justices for the county of Suffolk; and having been taken within one jurisdiction, the officer had no authority to carry him into another, Ex parte Kite (a); which is decisive upon that point. Then upon the other point, it is clear from the third (b), forty-ninth (b), and seventyfourth (c) sections of the 6 Geo. 4, c. 108, that in order to give any justices jurisdiction, the statute requires the offence to have been committed on the high seas; and therefore, unless the committing magistrates in this case had evidence before them that the prisoner was on board the vessel on the high seas, they had no jurisdiction. Now there was no evidence of that kind; there was customs or excise, or other per- Sect. 80 enacts, that it shall be been arrested and detained for being found, or discovered to have been, on board any vessel or boat liable to forfeiture under that or any act relating to the revenue of customs, &c., shall be carried, on the confession of such person of such offence, or on proof thereof upon the oath of one or more credible witness, to convict such person; and every such person so convicted shall immediately pay into the hands of such justices the penalty of 1007., or, in default thereof, the said justices shall commit such person to any gaol or prison, there to remain until such penalty is paid. (a) 2 D. & R. 212; 1 B. & C. 101. (b) Which see set out ante, 5, n. (c) Ante, 4, (a). nothing to shew that the prisoner had committed any offence on the high seas. The only evidence upon that subject was, that the prisoner was on board the vessel when she was seized; but the vessel was not then on the high seas: on the contrary, she was in Harwich harbour, a place within the jurisdiction of other magistrates, and into which she was not carried by the seizing officer, but into which she proceeded in the course of her voyage. For all that appears upon the face of the depositions, the prisoner may have been on shore when the vessel was first discovered by the officer, and may have gone on board after she had left the high seas, and entered Harwich harbour. The conviction assumes, that because the prisoner was on board the vessel when she was seized in the harbour, he must also have been on board her when she was first discovered on the high seas. There is nothing to warrant such an assumption in point of fact, and nothing can be assumed in point of law, to give operation to a penal statute, or to clothe a magistrate with criminal jurisdiction (a). Lord TENTERDEN, C. J.-Two objections have been taken to this conviction; the first, that the prisoner was not found on board the vessel on the high seas, and therefore had committed no offence; the second, that his offence, if any, was committed within the jurisdiction of the magistrates of Suffolk or of Ipswich, and not within the jurisdiction of the magistrates of Harwich. It has been contended, that, although the vessel was found on the high seas, the prisoner was not, and that he may have gone on board her after she had left the high seas. If the fact was so, the prisoner might have proved it; and if he had, he would have given a good answer to the information, because he would have disproved the alle(a) See Rex v. All Saints, ante, i. 380; Rer v. Gilkes, ante, i. 487. 1828. The KING v. NUNN. 1828. The KING V. NUNN. gation that he was found on board the vessel on the high seas. But the prisoner not having proved that fact, we cannot assume it. Then it is said, that if it is now made to appear before us that the offence was committed, not on the high seas, but in the body of a county, although that would have been good matter of defence to the information, still, as the fact of the offence being committed on the high seas is necessary to give jurisdiction to the magistrates, we ought to inquire into it, notwithstanding the adjudication of the magistrates that the prisoner was found on board the vessel on the high seas. I have great doubts whether that doctrine can be maintained; and whether it is competent for the prisoner to set up that as an objection to the conviction now, which he might have set up originally as an answer to the information upon which the conviction was founded. It is, however, unnecessary to express any decided opinion upon that question now, because the whole matter is before us, and looking at the whole matter, it is perfectly plain to my mind, that the offence in this case was committed on the high seas. It appears from the depositions taken before the magistrates, that the officer being upon the watch at a very early hour in the morning, discovered the vessel coming into Harwich harbour, which must mean, coming from sea; consequently the vessel must have been at sea: and if the prisoner was on board the vessel at sea, he was guilty of the offence of which he has been convicted. The other point depends upon the application of the seventy-fourth section of the statute to this case. It is thereby enacted that if any offence shall be committed upon the high seas such offence shall, for the purposes of prosecution, be deemed and taken to have been committed at the place on land in the United Kingdom, into which the person committing such offence shall be taken, brought, or carried. Now in this case the prisoner was taken, brought, and carried into the borough of Harwich; so that if the offence was committed upon the high seas, which, upon the grounds already stated, I think it clearly was, the magistrates of Harwich had jurisdiction to convict him, and the objection as to the want of jurisdiction in the convicting magistrates falls to the ground. The case cited of Ex parte Kite (a) is entirely different from the present. The conviction in that case stated that the prisoners had been found on board a boat in the harbour of Folkstone, not that they had been found on the high seas, or that they had committed any offence there. BAYLEY, J.-The third section of the act of parliament renders any vessel discovered to have been at sea with tobacco on board, under the circumstances therein mentioned, liable to forfeiture; and the eightieth section. renders any person discovered to have been on board such vessel liable to be convicted. It is contended that the prisoner in this case was not discovered to have been on board the vessel at sea, but that he was only found on board within the limits of the county of Suffolk, or of the borough of Ipswich; and that the seventy-fourth section ought to be construed as giving jurisdiction to the magistrates of that place only, in which the offender is arrested and detained. But that section gives jurisdiction to the magistrates of the place into which the offender shall be taken, brought, or carried; therefore, if the prisoner was taken on board the vessel within the limits of the borough of Ipswich, and was carried in the vessel out of those limits and into the limits of the borough of Harwich, it is clear that by the words of the act the magistrates of Harwich had jurisdiction to try and convict him. In Ex parte Kite (a), the facts were different: (a) 2 D. & R. 212; 1 B. & C. 101. 1828. The KING v. NUNN. 1828. The KING v. NUNN. there the prisoners were taken on board a boat in Folkstone harbour, and were carried first to Folkstone, and afterwards from Folkstone to Dover. LITTLEDALE, J.-In order to convict the prisoner of the offence charged against him, it was necessary to prove two things: first, that the vessel was on the high seas, and secondly, that he was on board the vessel on the high seas. It seems to me that both those things were proved. It is perfectly clear that the vessel, when first discovered, was at sea, within the limits mentioned in the act of parliament, and I think there was reasonable evidence that the prisoner was then on board. It has been argued that the prisoner was not seen on board until the vessel had got into the harbour, and that he may have gone on board while she was there, and after she had left the high seas. If that had been proved before the magistrates, it would have been an answer to the charge, and the prisoner could not have been convicted; but no proof of that kind was adduced; therefore, I think there was evidence upon which the magistrates were justified in finding that the prisoner had been on board the vessel while she was on the high seas. Then the only question is, whether the convicting justices had jurisdiction. It seems to me that they had; because by the act of parliament, the justices of the place into which the person committing the offence is carried, have jurisdiction to try it. A vessel on her way up a river, may pass through several jurisdictions; but the justices of the place on land into which the offender is first carried, have jurisdiction to try and convict him and in the present case that place was Harwich. PARKE, J.—I am also of opinion that the magistrates of Harwich had jurisdiction in this case. That question |