Page:Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, Volume 1.djvu/330

 316 //. FROM THE llOO'S TO THE 1800'S to deal with the cases over which they claimed jurisdic- tion. The merchants keenly felt the ill effects of these attacks made by the Common Law Courts. A conflict of jurisdiction must always give advantages to the unscrupulous litigant. It was clear that the Admiralty process was more speedy, and therefore more fit to deal with the cases of merchants and mariners. " Not one cause in ten comes before that court but some of the parties or witnesses in it are pressing to go to sea with the next tide." ^ The Admiralty could issue com- missions to examine witnesses abroad, and it could examine the parties themselves. " The merchant if he can avoid the Admiralty, where he must answer upon oath, and proof may be made by commission, thinks himself secure from any danger at the common law."^ The Admiralty could arrest the ship, and thus give far more effective security to those who had Deen employed upon it. The Admiralty could allow all the mariners to sue together for their wages, whereas the Common Law Courts insisted upon separate actions. The judges of the court of Admiralty, being civilians, were far more likely to be able to understand contracts made abroad with reference to the civil law. ^ Two cases, put by Sir Leo- line Jenkins in his argument before the House of Lords in 1660, illustrate the incompetence of the Common Law Courts to deal with the jurisdiction which they claimed. In the first case put, a Spanish merchant resident in Spain owes money to A. The Spanish merchant has a ship in an English port, which the Admiralty process alone can reach. An action is brought by A in the court of Admiralty. The ship is ar- rested ; but in consequence of a prohibition it is released. What is the use of suing a debtor in Spain with no available property in this country? In the second case A owes money to a Spanish merchant. The Spaniard sues in the Admiralty, and is prohibited. He then sues at common law, and, to prove his case, produces a copy of his contract. A pleads " non est factum." The original is in Spain deposited with a » Zouch, Jurisdiction, etc., 130. » Life of Jenkins i Ixxvii, Ixxxiii. Zouch 129 ISft
 * Life of Sir Leoline Jenkins, Wynne, i Ixxxii.