brown case captain alexander hamilton appellant Dutch east India company  respondent that march Mews dig viii scot r r see Piggott foreign judgement and  Edward the sentence of a foreign court of competent jurisdiction be evidence  of res P  a and be not to be call in question in a collateral cause in the  court of this kingdom interlocutor of the court of session affirm upon the  unfortunate loss of the ship Adelaar and her cargo all belong to the  respondent which be wreck upon the coast of the island of barra in Scotland in  may on her voyage to the east Indies some part of the silver and other effect  save out of the say ship be bring into the court of admiralty in Scotland and  the property thereof be adjudge to the respondent after a long expensive suit  and a very great deduction for savage when they expect to have receive the  small remainder of their effect the appellant arrest or stop the same in the  hand of the court for satisfaction of damage he pretend to have suffer to the  amount of pound S sterling by the violent seizure and confiscation of a ship  brown er p and cargo belong to he at Malacca a Dutch settlement in the east  Indies year condemned by a sentence of the court at Malacca on pretence of  have Amphion I e opium on board contrary to the law of that settlement which  sentence of Malacca be afterward confirm by the superior court of Batavia upon  the appellant appeal to that court though the appellant insist that the say  sentence be contrary to the law of nation and contrary to the treaty of  commerce between king Charles I and the state general year still subsist these  circumstance be state in the follow manner by the appellant in his print case  on the present appeal to the house of lord in the year the appellant reside at  Madras in the east Indies and he together with other person then reside there  fit out a ship call the satisfaction on a voyage to Rhio under the command of  the appellant the appellant arrive safe at Rhio with the say ship but be  oblige to stay there some time to dispose of his cargo he think proper in the  mean time to send out a small vessel to trade to atcheen in the island of  Sumatra under the care and direction of James Macdowall one of the owner of  the ship the satisfaction the ship in her way to atcheen be to pass along the  coast over against Malacca a fort belong to the Dutch east India company in  the territory of the king of Johore and that king have notice of such intend  voyage desire that some chest of copper may be take on board for his use and  brown land for his account at Malacca to which proposal the appellant agree  and the say copper be accord put on board for the use of the say king of  Johore the say ship proceed on her voyage and come to anchor over against  Malacca and as there be no intention to go into Malacca nor any other view of  anchor there but to put the say copper on shore the master immediate give  notice of his have the copper aboard for the king of Johore and desire  allowance to unload it and allowance be give by the governor the same be  unload accord during the time the say ship be at anchor in order to unload the  say copper a English ship be pass from Bengal have a quantity of amphion or  opium on board and Mr Macdowall after talk with the master of the ship at what  price the same be to be sell apprehend he may dispose of it to good advantage  at atcheen whither he be bind he make a agreement for the purchase of some of  the amphion and have the same deliver to he and put on board his ship the say  Mr Macdowall with the say ship have only anchor about three mile from shore  and as he have no design of trade with the Dutch so he never be within their  jurisdiction but continue still at anchor and have unload the copper he be  prepare to proceed in his voyage to atcheen but Mr Macdowall be not a little  surprise to find his voyage stop by a number of soldier from Malacca with some  servant of the Dutch east India company who come on board his ship then at  anchor and ready to sail and seize the say ship and by force carry her within  the boom or harbour Mr Macdowall immediate complain to the governor of such  violent assault commit upon a subject of great Britain while in peace and  alliance with the statesgeneral but in place of redress very extraordinary  method be use to persuade some of the ship crew to give evidence that the  master of the ship have be carry on a unlawful trade and particular have  import opium into Malacca two of they be almost whip to death on pretence of  draw from they a discovery at last a sentence be on January pronounce by judge  appoint by the east India company whereby upon a recital that a passage be  attempt to the boom and that accord to the boom book the pole money be pay  they declare chest of amphion pound of sandellwood pound shellack pound  agallawood together with the vessel to be confiscate accord to the repeat  order and command of their honour the high justice and the statute publish  there particular that of the saint of August and appoint the amphion to be  send to Batavia and there sell by order and direction of their honour the high  justice of India and the proceed of the same brown together with the return or  proceed of the other merchandise and vessel to be divide after usance as  follow one half for the company one three for the fiscal and licent master and  one six for the poor by this sentence it be not pretend that the ship have be  within the boom brown er p or bring any opium within it without which there  can be no importation but only that a passage be attempt Mr Macdowall  thereupon appeal to the high court of Batavia and the appellant go thither  himself but his application there be as fruitless as Macdowalls at Malacca the  court there on a recital of their have consider the cause of the commit fraud  and contravention of the law of and recite the sentence at Malacca affirm the  same with cost without hear or allow the witness offer for the owner to be  examine scornful tell they English oath be not to be regard in the east Indies  and thus the appellant be strip of a very considerable property the pretence  of this as the appellant be inform be a regulation at Malacca in order all  ship that trade to Malacca to enter into the river but in case they be not to  unload to abide in the road and not to run any good and forbid all ship with  opium on board to enter the river under the penalty of forfeit the ship and  cargo but the appellant apprehend suppose there have be such a order that it  can have no authority over a British subject who have no notice of it especial  since it be no more than a private order not authorize or approve of by the  state general and the rather since it be inconsistent with the treaty of  commerce subsist between the English and Dutch particular in the year whereby  all officer be prohibit from even search any British ship lie in a bay except  upon suspicion of her carry any contraband good to the enemy of the state and  when such contraband good be find which be particular recite of which opium be  none such contraband good only be to be forfeit but neither the vessel nor any  other part of the cargo be liable to be confiscate but suppose this be a good  regulation it will not reach the appellant for the ship do not enter the river  but be at anchor above three mile distant from the fort he have no run good he  have no temptation to import the opium he purchase into Malacca it be then  sell at atcheen for which place the ship be bind sixty per cent at least above  what it give at Malacca a Dutch east India ship be cast away on the island of  bana and some part of the effect be fish up the respondent claim these effect  and bring a action before the judge of the admiralty in Scotland against the  person who have fish the same up and have a decree in their favour brown the  appellant apprehend this to be a proper time to have reparation make to he for  the injury he suffer at Malacca attach or arrest these effect and bring his  action against the respondent before the judge of the admiralty for  satisfaction of the value of the say ship and cargo the respondent first  object to the competency or jurisdiction of the court of admiralty for that  the respondent be subject of a foreign independent state be not bind to answer  in any court in Scotland and second adhere to that objection the respondent  insist that the ship and good be not illegal take from the appellant but that  they be regular confiscate and as the sentence give at Malacca declare accord  to the statute publish there and in particular one of the first of August so  that the appellant present claim have be determine by a competent court from  which there lie no appeal to the high court of admiralty in Scotland and who  therefore can not without violate a principle of law receive by all nation  review or alter the proceed and determination of a foreign court absolute  independent but the judge of the court of admiralty by his interlocutor  January repel the objection to the jurisdiction and find the court competent  and further repel the defence of res P  a find upon the decree of the court of  Malacca and the other decree of the court of Batavia and in regard of the  exception take by the pursuer appellant to the say decree as contrary to the  law of nation and treaty in the year sustain process at the pursuer appellant  instance upon the arrest of the effect belong to the defender respondent then  lie in court unless the defender respondent shall in support of the say decree  find upon by they produce the statute in the year refer to in the decree of  the court of Malacca and the other law in the year refer to in the decree of  the court of Batavia or such other statute and regulation as in law or equity  may be find sufficient brown er p to maintain the say decree confiscate the  pursuer appellant effect and for that end assign to the defender respondent  procurator the that day of march then next for produce of the say writ as this  interlocutor manifest impeach the authority of the court of the statesgeneral  and therefore can not be comply with without give up the validity of their  sentence and admit in consequence that the effect of the company may be arrest  in any place in Europe until the company shall prove the justice and legality  of the many sentence which the judge in India have already give or may  hereafter give it become impossible for the respondent to comply with the  direction of this interlocutor by produce the several act which be the  foundation of the several judgement in India and thereby give up the authority  of res P  a and submit the legality or brown formality of these sentence as  well as the justice and force of the law on which they be find to the  cognition of the court of admiralty in Scotland therefore a petition be  present to the judge of the admiralty for the respondent set forth the several  reason which move they to insist that no action shall be admit in Scotland and  pray to have the say interlocutor vary and to have it find that the east India  company of holland be not liable to the jurisdiction of the court of admiralty  and to admit the exception rei judicaite find upon the decree of the court of  Malacca and Batavia to which petition answer be give by the appellant the  judge by his interlocutor refuse the desire of the petition and in respect the  petitioner do not produce any statute or regulation sufficient to support  their two decree repel the defence of res P  a and admit the appellant to  bring proof of his demand and by another interlocutor find it prove by the  decree of the court of Malacca the that of January and the decree of the court  of Batavia upon the appeal of the pursuer appellant confirm the say decree of  Malacca both produce by the defender respondent that the ship or vessel  therein specify with the particular good therein belong to the pursuer  appellant be by the defender respondent their servant or other under their  command in their name or by their assistance and ratihabition seize confiscate  and condemned for the use of the say company and their fiscal in the Indies  and of their poor conform to the proportion in the say decree of the court of  Malacca contain and find it prove by the testimony of witness and abstract  from the pursuer appellant book that the say good and ship be worth pound S  sterling and find the defender respondent liable in payment thereof to the  pursuer appellant and ordain they to pay the appellant pound S sterling for  cost upon this the respondent apply to the court of session and obtain a  suspension or injunction to stay further proceed of the admiralty court and  also commence a action of reduction to set aside the say decree of the court  of admiralty I for that the say court be incompetent have no jurisdiction in  the case and that it be iniquitous to make the company liable for the seizure  of the say ship and cargo by their officer and servant when it be neither  allege nor prove that the seizure be make by their order or the whole proceed  apply to their use two for that the cause have be judge and determine by the  court of Malacca and Batavia their sentence can not be review or reverse by  the court of admiralty in Scotland which have no jurisdiction over these court  and that this plea or exception of res P  a be by the law of nation available  in all court it be a establish maxim quod res P  a pro in point of fact brown  to have and though when a decree pronounce in one country be seek to be carry  into execution in another the judge who interposition be demand ought not to  afford it without a previous enquiry into the justice of the sentence yet when  a decree be actual execute in the country where it be pronounce it become then  of no further use than to protect the person who have have satisfaction under  it from restitution which it do with the same effect whether such restitution  be seek in the nation where the sentence be pronounce or in any other it be a  perpetual rule without any limitation that res P  a exception make ready  perpetual and when the court appear to be of opinion in this matter with the  respondent the appellant then first bethink himself of allege that his ship be  seize in alto brown er p mari without the limit of the jurisdiction of the  court of Malacca and Batavia and therefore these court be incompetent and that  though the sentence of a competent court shall afford a effectual plea against  restitution and bar all enquiry into the justice of the decree yet there be no  reason for allow the same privilege to the sentence of a incompetent court and  that where the competency be controvert evidence for clear it ought to be  direct to be bring but the respondent reply that this new allegation be  contrary to the appellant own show in the state of his case in the court of  admiralty wherein he set forth that the ship be seize at anchor in the road of  Malacca where she have break bulk and deliver out some good and insist that  the sentence in the Indies by the supreme court of a independent state which  can not be review or reverse by the court of admiralty in Scotland be evidence  of the competency of the court where it be pronounce as well as of the justice  and legality of the proceed whereupon the lord of session July by their  interlocutor sustain the reason of suspension of res P  a and repel the  objection of incompetency and iniquity and the cause be afterward argue July  before the Lord grange ordinary his lordship by his interlocutor suspend the  letter I e stay proceed simpliciter against which interlocutor a petition be  prefer for the appellant pray a review and that the lord will find the decree  of Malacca and Batavia do not exclude a enquiry by their lordship into the  competency of these court and into the justice of their decree and to allow  the appellant to prove that the court of Malacca and Batavia have no  jurisdiction over he and answer have be put in for the respondent their  lordship by their interlocutor December adhere to their former interlocutor  and refuse the desire of the petition against these three interlocutor of the  that and that of July and the d of December the appellant appeal and brown  pray c Talbot r dundas W Hamilton that the same may be reverse for the follow  reason among other I for that no judgement can have the force of res P  a in a  country where it be not authoritative and no judgement can be authoritative in  a place where the judge that give it have no jurisdiction and certain the  judge of Malacca have no jurisdiction in great Britain two that it do not  appear that the judge of Malacpa have any jurisdiction over the appellant or  his ship they can have none unless the appellant be guilty of some forbid or  unlawful traffic such unlawful trade be not prove and if they have no  jurisdiction their sentence can be res P  a III that by the law and practice  of holland itself no sentence of a foreign judicatory be hold as res P  a and  there be no reason for allow a great authority to their decree than they allow  to those of other nation IV that the give authority to such decree without the  least evidence that it have any just or equitable foundation will open a door  to such violent and piratical practice as must prove destructive to the trade  of great Britain and render it precarious the respondent rely p York d Forbes  on the argument former offer to the court of session and herein before state  and the interlocutor complain of be accord affirm brown er p