pose of letting in this evidence, that Mr. Miller was the owner at that time. In the first place, I deny that there is any presumption at all of ownership of the kind. There are certain rules of law with regard to the possession of landed property and freehold estate, saying that possession shall be prima facie evidence of ownership; but I say there is no presumption of this kind when you are dealing with the circumstance that a particular ship is in the hands of a builder, a builder by trade, whose trade is to build ships for other people; there is no presumption at all of ownership necessarily following from the possession-it may or it may not be there is no presumption one way or the other. I ask you to see what is the consequence of the argument. What does my learned friend the Queen's advocate say? and there is no better way of putting it. He says, here is a proceeding by the Crown in rem, but the way in which it is tried is between the Crown and certain defendants-certain persons have come in and made an affidavit as to their being the owners of the vessel. And then I take the words of my learned friend the attorney general, who says that it must be admitted on this proceeding that Fawcett, Preston and Company are the owners of the vessel, as they allege they are.

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. That is, at the time of the seizure.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS. That is, at the time of the seizure. Your lordship has very properly pointed out that it would have been improper and irrelevant for the affidavit to have stated anything more than the ownership at the time of the seizure. Now, it is admitted that Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company were, at the time of the seizure, the owners of the vessel. Now, take the case of some tobacco that is seized by the Crown as having been smuggled. A particular person comes in and defends, and is admitted to be the owner of the tobacco at the time of the seizure. Would anybody mean to say, for penalties or for criminal punishments, that you could give evidence by some former owner, or, I will say, holder. I will not use the word "owner," but, in order to make it more like the present case, I will say some former holder of the tobacco, some person in whose possession the tobacco was a year ago. If this person said this tobacco is tobacco which, according to my notion, will be smuggled hereafter, does anybody mean to say that the person admitted to be the owner at the time of the seizure is to be bound by a gossiping statement of that kind, of every person in whose hands that tobacco may happen to have been found for ten minutes since the time of its manufacture? I apprehend, my lord, that a more unsubstantial argument was never submitted to the court, and I hope your lordship will not accept it. LORD CHIEF BARON. It appears to me that I cannot receive the statement of the declarations or expressions of Mr. Miller, senior, for the purpose of producing any such effect as the object which is put forward. I think the question that has been raised about the rule of evidence in this case might be very shortly disposed of in this way: The present is a proceeding against one set of defendants. Now, neither Mr. Miller nor the sons of Mr. Miller are parties. Either, then, the evidence to be given would prove nothing against them or any one else; or if it would, it would be an admission by one man of another man's guilt, and I think that is not evidence that I can receive. But I do not think it right to leave the question merely in that dry and short way, but to notice the arguments that have been used on the part of the Crown. With respect to the ownership of the vessel, there can be no doubt that in one sense, while the ship was still in the hands of the ship-builder, and not yet perfect, the contract not being completed, in one sense it may be said to have been, and probably really was, the actual property of the builder. But inasmuch as the evidence before me now is that the defendants in this information claim that it was theirs at the time of seizure, I must take that prima facie to be true; and then I think it does not at all follow that they were not the persons who employed Messrs. Miller to build the ship; and though in one sense it might be said to be Messrs. Miller's property till they had parted with it, yet they were employed to construct the vessel on behalf of those who are now making the claim upon this information. Now, would a declaration of any sort, the tendency of which would be to produce an impression or to give a character to the vessel, would a declaration by the ship-builder at all be binding against the person who employed him to build the ship? He is employed to build the ship; he is not employed to make any admissions or statements as to the nature of the ship; he is employed simply to build it. But now it might happen, and what was suggested in the course of the argument by the attorney general would be perfectly true. If some direction were given to build it in a particular fashion, and as the reason something were pointed out, that possibly might be evidence; but the officer who is now in the witness-box I do not understand to have had anything to do with the building of the ship at all.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. He is the watchman of the yard, my lord.

LORD CHIEF BARON. So he may be, but he had nothing to do with the actual construction of the vessel. Assuming, then, that the vessel was not the property of the Messrs. Miller, no declaration by them could at all affect their employers. We can put that certainly in a very intelligible instance. Supposing a housebreaker were to employ a shoemaker to make a pair of shoes to give facilities to his depredations by being perfectly noiseless, would the declaration of the shoemaker that he was constructing

2 A C-VOL. V

those shoes so as to make the least possible noise be evidence against the party employing him if he were charged with housebreaking? It would not. I think that is an illustration which to my mind clearly proves the present case, though it certainly has not the dignity which belongs to the present inquiry. It is my opinion, therefore, that I cannot receive this evidence. Before I finish my judgment upon the subject, I would wish to say that I extremely approve of the candor on the part of the counsel for the Crown in meeting the case fairly, and at once stating what is the object of the question and what is the conclusion which they propose to draw from it. My impression is, that, assuming that the answer would have some weight or effect in the present inquiry, I think it cannot be given in evidence against the present defendants. If the person who is supposed to make the statement made it from any knowledge, made it by any authority, and made it under circumstances that would give any weight to his opinion or to the expressions which he used, he might be called as a witness to say, "I gave it that character; I called it by such a name, because I knew by the intimations of A, B, C, D, or so on, that so and so was to take place, and therefore I formed that conclusion."

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. My lord, I mention this now to avoid any misunderstanding on the part of your lordship. I shall feel it my duty to tender a bill of exceptions to your lordship upon the rejection of this evidence.

LORD CHIEF BARON. If you will allow me, I will speak to my brother Martin upon the subject. I assure you I believe I have decided according to the rule of evidence. I assure you I think I should very much endanger your proceedings if I were to admit the evidence.

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. We have considered the matter, my lord, and of course we bow to your lordship's decision.

LORD CHIEF BARON. I think I should put in peril the whole proceedings if I were to admit the answer. If you wish me to do so, I will consult my brother Martin.

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. I do not express any desire upon the subject. I only express the wish that it should not by any means surprise your lordship if, at the proper time, a bill of exceptions is tendered.

LORD CHIEF BARON. Can a bill of exceptions be tendered? I see under the new act that it may be so.

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. It is your lordship's ruling, and of course we bow to it with every respect upon this matter of law.

QUEEN'S ADVOCATE (to the witness.) Do you know the firm of Fawcett, Preston and Company?-Yes.

Do you know any of the men whom they employ by sight?-No.

Do you know a person of the name of Hamilton, a Mr. Hamilton?-I have seen him. Have you ever seen him in Messrs. Miller's yard?-I have.

Have you ever seen him there during the course of the building of the vessel Alexandra-Yes.

Have you seen him there more than once?—Yes.

Frequently-Yes.

You say frequently?—Yes.

Can you tell at all how often?-Yes; once a week, or twice a week.

Did he take any notice of the Alexandra (I do not ask you what) when he came into the yard?—Yes, a little.

Did anybody come with him?—Yes.

On those occasions?-Yes.

Do you know the name of that gentleman ?-Bulloch, I believe.

Did they ever look at the Alexandra together?—Yes.

More than once?-Yes.

Besides looking at her, did they do anything with respect to her?-No.

I do not ask you what; did they give any orders respecting her?-Not that I am aware of.

LORD CHIEF BARON. They did nothing but look at her; they gave no orders?-No. QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. Did you ever hear Mr. Hamilton speak to Mr. Miller upon the subject of the Alexandra? I do not ask what he said, but did you ever hear him ?— Yes.

Did you hear him do that more than once?—Yes, once at least.

Did you ever hear this person of the name of Bulloch that you have mentioned speak to Mr. Miller?-Yes.

Upon the subject of the Alexandra ?—Yes.

Do you know a Mr. Mann ?—Yes, I do.

What firm does he belong to?-Messrs. Fawcett, Preston and Company.

Have you ever seen him on board the Alexandra ?-I have.

When ?-At different times.

While she was in course of construction ?—Yes.

Have you ever heard him give any orders respecting her?-No.

Did you say you had seen him more than once f-Yes.

How often do you think you have seen Mr. Miller on board the Alexandra ?—It might be three or four times.

That was while she was in course of building in the yard?—Yes.

When he came did he stay a short or long time when he was on board ?-Perhaps he would be an hour or half an hour.

On board the Alexandra?—To and fro.

Did you ever see him go on board any other ship when he was there?—I do not recollect it.

As to Mr. Bulloch and Mr. Hamilton, when they came to the yard, how did they get in ?-Through the yard gate.

Who let them in ?-Myself, for one.

LORD CHIEF BARON. You mean they got in exactly like other people ?-Yes, just so. QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. Did they have an order, or did they come in like anybody else They had an order from one of us.

Was that the order usually given to everybody, or was it a particular order?—No. What was it?—Generally an order for them to go through, that is all.

Was it the usual or was it a particular order?-Not a particular order.

LORD CHIEF BARON. Had the order anything to do with the Alexandra?—Not that I am aware of.

Was it merely to let them into the yard ?-To come into the yard.

The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE. When Mr. Mann came, did you see him go on board the Alexandra in company with Mr. Bulloch or Mr. Hamilton at any time?-No.

Cross-examined by Mr. KARSLAKE:

Let us understand what you were exactly; you were a watchman, were not you?-I was.

You had nothing on earth to do with building ships?—No.

I believe your duty was to stand at the gate?—Yes.

And you continued that duty until you were discharged?—Yes.

When did Mr. Miller discharge you ?—I do not know.

You have not the least notion when that was?-No.

That you swear?—Yes.

You are sure you were discharged?—Yes.

You tell those gentlemen that you have not the least notion when ?—No.
When, not why, is my question ?-On the Thursday, perhaps it might be.

Last Thursday, was it -No.

When was it that you were discharged from Messrs. Miller's?—I do not know.
When was it done?-When I was leaving the office.

How long ago?-That makes all the difference; perhaps six weeks.

After you left them what did you do?—Nothing at all.

And you have been doing nothing ever since ?—Yes, I have done something.
What have you been doing since-Driving a car.

Driving a cab, is it?-Yes.

After you had left Messrs. Miller's, did you go and see a man called Barnes ?—No. Did you see him?--I have seen him.

Did you take Barnes down to Mr. Maguire's?—I did not.

Did you know that he went ?-No.

That you swear?-Yes.

You do?-Yes.

Did you take him to Cousins's, to a man called Cousins?-No.

Did you see him there?-No.

Do you know Mr. Maguire ?—Yes.

What is he?-He is a detective.

Did you see Messrs. Duncan, Squarey and Company?—I did not see them.

Did you go to the office?—No, not that I am aware of.

You are likely to know if you did go, you know?—Yes.

Did anybody from their office come to you?-Where is their office?

Never mind that. Did anybody from Messrs. Duncan and Squarey's office come to you?-I do not know anything about it.

How long after you had been at Mr. Miller's did you see Maguire?-A fortnight or three weeks, perhaps.

Mr. Miller has a considerable ship-building yard, has he not?—I believe so.

You are not prepared to swear that, are you?-No.

Although you were there many months -Yes.

How many months were you there?-Twelve or fifteen months.

A good many people came to the yard on business?—Yes.

A great many in the course of the day?—Yes; they do.

And your place was at the gate; not in the yard among the ships, was it?—No.

In the gate-Generally.

You say you believe that Mr. Bulloch came ?—Yes.

What do you know of Mr. Bulloch? Did you ever see him? How do you know it was Mr. Bulloch, the person who came ?-He is a little man.

How do you know that it is Mr. Bulloch ?-I do not know that it is he.

It is easy to say Mr. Bulloch came there; how do you know it was Mr. Hamilton came-I saw him.

How do you know him?-I know him perfectly well.

How do you know him?-I know him.

Did you ever speak to him in your life?-Yes.

What did you say to him?-I do not know.

You let him through the gate and out again, did you?—Yes.

Is that what you know of him ?—Yes.

Is that all you know of him?-Not exactly.

Did you ever speak to him except when letting him through the gate and out again? I have at other times.

When you went into the service as watchman, had you been in the police force ?— I had.

How long had you been out of the police force when you went as watchman?—I cannot say.

Have you got the least notion ?-No.

Not the least?-No.

Several years?—No.

Several months?—Perhaps eighteen months, as near as I can state.

Re-examined by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL:

You mentioned a person of the name of Bulloch; was he called "Bulloch" in your hearing whenever he was spoken of?-I cannot say.

Did you ever hear him called by his name?-I do not know,

Did persons give any name when they entered the gate at your master's buildingyard? Yes.

Did you take their names?-Sometimes they might and sometimes they might not. Sometimes the names were taken ?-Yes, some of them.

While you held your place, was any name given by this person whose name you say was Bulloch?

Mr. KARSLAKE. What do you mean by that?

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. Given by Mr. Bulloch?

WITNESS. No.

Am I to understand that Mr. Bulloch never did to you give a name ?—No.

Are you sure that he came with Mr. Hamilton?--I have seen him with Mr. Hamilton. Can you describe the sort of man that you call Mr. Bulloch; what sort of man was he?— A little man, with dark whiskers and beard.

LORD CHIEF BARON. A little man with short whiskers, is that what you said?—A little man, with dark whiskers.

Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL. Was he dressed in any particular way that you can speak to-I do not know.

You cannot speak to his dress?—No.

The witness withdrew.

Mr. WILLIAM BARNES sworn; examined by Mr LOCKE.

Do you live at No. 7 Longville street, Toxteth Park, Liverpool?—Yes.

Are you an engineer?-An engine-driver.

When did you go into Messrs. Miller's employment ?-It is turned four years since first I went into their employment.

Into their ship-building yard at Toxteth Dock?—Yes.

What employment had you there?-At driving Mr. Miller's engine.

When did you leave them?—It is nearly three months ago.

For what reason was it that you left them ?-I committed myself.

In what way did you commit yourself?-I got a sup of drink and went away from my work.

Do you recollect a steamship called the Oreto that was built in their yard?—Yes. Was she built by Messrs. Miller?-Yes.

How long ago is that?—I think it would be about sixteen months since she went away.

Was she launched about sixteen months ago?-Yes, I think so; I am not exactly sure. Do you recollect two gunboats called the Penguin and the Steady, being built in your yard-Yes.

Were those built for the English government?—Yes, I believe so.
Gunboats?—Yes; they were called gunboats.

The Penguin and the Steady?-Yes.

These were built by Messrs. Miller for the English government?—Yes.
About three years ago, was it?-Something about three years ago.

Used you frequently to go over the boats and examine them?—At dinner time and breakfast time I used to go about and have a look at them; I used to go on board sometimes.

You know a gunboat I suppose from a bumboat; you know a gunboat when you see it?—Yes, I know such things; it was built properly.

You know that the Penguin and Steady were both gunboats, and built as gunboats?-Yes, and called gunboats.

Do you recollect the screw steamer called the Alexandra being built there ?—Yes. Did you frequently go over her whilst she was building?—Yes, at dinner time, and breakfast time, and that.

What is she like?—She is like the other gunboats, only smaller.

Is she like the Oreto?-Yes, she is like her, only smaller.

Like the Oreto, the Penguin, and the Steady, only smaller?-Yes, only smaller.

Do you recollect during the time that the Alexandra was being built Captain Tessier coming to your yard?—Yes.

Who was he?-I believe that he was the captain of the Phantom.

What was the Phantom?-She was a steel boat.

Was she both steel and steam?-Yes.

Where was the Phantom being built-In Messrs. Miller's yard.

Was the Alexandra being built at the same time as the Phantom ?—Yes.

And when Captain Tessier came what did he do? What vessel did he look at ?

He merely used to go round and have a look; he never took so much notice of the gunboat, at least of the Alexandra, as he did of the Phantom.

Did he take notice of the Alexandra ?—Yes, just looking round her; I never saw him give any instructions.

You never saw him give any instructions about the Alexandra?-No.

Have you heard him give instructions about the Phantom?—No, I never did.

Which were the vessels he went to look at when he came into the yard?-Chiefly the Phantom.

Was there any other vessel that he looked at ?—Yes, the Alexandra; he used chiefly to go round and have a look.

Did you know of his going round and looking at other vessels besides the Phantom and Alexandra?-Yes; he used to go round and look at them all. Have you heard him giving directions about the Phantom, do

am not certain.

Do you know Mr. Speers ?—Yes.

you

say, or not?-I

Who is Mr. Speers?-Mr. Speers is Messrs. Fawcett, Preston, & Co.'s overlooker. Do you know him?-Yes.

How long have you known him?—Ever since I first went to work for Messrs. Miller. Messrs. Fawcett, Preston & Co., are engineers, are they not?—Yes.

When Speers came to your yard, what used he to do?-He seldom used to come unless they were boring the stern posts for the screw; he used to superintend that. What vessel?-In both the Phantom and the Alexandra.

You were boring out the stern posts of the Alexandra?-No, I was not.

The men were, and you saw them doing it?—Yes.

What were they boring out those stern posts in the Alexandra for?-For the screw shaft to work.

Messrs. Fawcett, Preston, and Company furnished the machinery too?-I was led to understand so.

For the Alexandra?—Yes.

Was it brought from their place?—I cannot say it was.

When it came there did Mr. Speers superintend it?—No, he used only to superintend the boring out; it was Messrs. Fawcett, Preston, and Company's men that were there. In the Alexandra?-Yes, and the Phantom.

They bored out those vessels ?—Yes.

What was brought there to be put into the Alexandra?—I did not see anything brought there, only the boilers.

Who brought the boilers?-I cannot say who brought them.

Where were they put on board the Alexandra?-In the dock. I did not see them put on board. I saw them after they were in.

In the Alexandra ?-Yes.

Where was it that you saw them in the Alexandra?-In Toxteth Dock.

Were any of Messrs. Fawcett and Preston's people there then?—Yes; the boiler makers.

Some of the boiler makers in the employ of Messrs. Fawcett?—Yes.

They were in the Alexandra, then?-Yes.

It would be about those boilers?—Yes.

Have you seen Mr. Speers there too?-Yes.

Do you recollect the Alexandra being launched ?—Yes.

That was in March last, was it?—I think it would be about that time.