Andrews the king against SOLEGUARD and another a information grant against a  captain of a man of war in commission lie at Portsmouth for prevent the  coroner of Portsmouth from hold a inquest on board the ship upon a person who  have hang himself in the cabin no inquisition have be hold by the admiralty  coroner SC stram a information be pray against one Soleguard captain of the  Berwick man of war and also against the boatswain thereof for refuse to let  the coroner of Portsmouth and his jury to come on board the say ship in order  to take a view and inquest thereon of the body of a person who have bang  himself in the cabin of the ship while she be at her more in water five fathom  deep and go to the dock to be clear and it appear on the affidavit produce  that the ship be in full commission when this accident happen that the body be  remove from the place where it be find hang to prevent infection and that the  captain refuse to suffer the coroner to take a view of the body in the ship  but only offer to let he take it on shore and afterward to come and see the  place where the person die and it also appear that the body be bury secret and  that the captain take several deposition relate to the fact and send they up  to the admiralty but it be not swear that he cause any inquest to be take it  be argue against this motion by dr Paul the king advocate sir Edmund Isham a  civilian and several commonlawyers that it be easy to be prove from the law of  oleron and the ordinance make at queensborough and other ancient book of the  civil law that the admiralty have jurisdiction within the place where this  accident happen but however as this point be to be determine only by the  authority of the commonlaw they say they will confine themselves to these and  the follow be cite stat r c extons jurisdiction of the admiralty c Inst stat h  c Inst   a hale p c hawk p c b c S mich car a action be bring by the earl of  Salisbury as lord of the manor of redriff against the marshal of the admiralty  and other for hinder the Andrews coroner of Surre to take a inquisition of one  who be kill by the fall of a ferry in the Thames and there be a verdict for  the defendant which case sir Edmund Isham say he have from a note in the  admiralty and he say that about two year before this last case a question of  the same nature come on before Lord hale but be declare that the admiralty  have a jurisdiction it be not enter into he also cite a opinion of the judge  upon a reference from the queen in Council year which be register in the  admiralty and the opinion be find on consideration of the statute of Elizabeth  c and car c and it be that the admiralty have a jurisdiction in all great  navigable river from the bridge to the sea and that the say statute of car be  make for the government of ship as well in time of peace as of war and that  person be punishable by martial law for the offence therein mention which be  commit either in the one or the other this be sign by ten judge ware chief  baron and gold just to differ they be of opinion that the admiralty have  jurisdiction not a Pontus but from the point only suppose therefore that the  admiralty have here a jurisdiction the power of take a view and inquest belong  to the Admiraltycoroner who be general the judge marshal he be only a deputy  to the judge who derive his authority from the Lord high admiral and several  clause in the letter patent grant to the late prince George of Denmark and  afterward to the earl of Pembroke create they Lord high admiral and also to  the judge of the admiralty be read to show that these person have the same  office of coroner by sea with those who be coroner by land sir Edmund Isham  also produce the follow instance of inquisition before the Admiraltycoroner  take out of a large bundle of they in the admiralty videlicet one of a maid  servant who fall into the Thames as she be wash her mop and be drown another  of a man who be drown in come from Wappingwall another of a man who be stab  upon shore and be find in the Thames and last another who fall from the shore  into Andrews the same river it be also argue that in the statute of e c of  coroner there be a save to lord and other who ought to make coroner of their  signory and franchise and in this case it be a material around Andrews er p  stance that the ship be in full commission there be no instance of a  landcoroner go aboard a ship in full commission of which a affidavit be  produce beside it appear here that the coroner be offer a view of the body in  the ship but be deny only to sit therein as a court and it be not necessary to  take a inquisition on the spot where the view be have but it may be take in  any other place afterward stat de duty crowner e latch SC Poph comb and as  this be a mere matter of right in question it be more proper to be try in a  action or a quo warranto than in a information for a misbehaviour on the other  side it be argue by solicitor general strange and Mr Wilbraham that the  admiralty have no jurisdiction but only super alturn mare unless it be in the  case of murder and maihem and this by statute of r Inst Owen more hale p c and  where both the stroke ad death be on the sea the admiralty have only a  concurrent jurisdiction hale p c in such case therefore if the  Admiraltycoroner refuse the other coroner to take a inquisition and do not  take one himself it be a great misdemeanour and this be the present case as to  the objection that the ship be here in full commission this make no difference  because the jurisdiction arise only from the place hob and it be very plain  that the coroner bath a right to go to the place to see the body before its  removal and if be omit this he be actual fineable though he may adjourn the  court to another place to take deposition stat de duty crowner e Bracton Fleta  lib c stat h c hale hist p c and in the earl of essex case who be kill in the  tower there be a great complaint make that the body be dress and remove from  the room and Andrews position it be in when it come to its end before notice  be give to the coroner as to what be here say that a action may be bring this  will be no satisfaction to the public and the whole court be clear of opinion  that a information ought to be grant for suppose that the admiralty have a  jurisdiction in the place now in question of which no opinion be give yet they  say it be plain by the case which have be cite with which Stamf p c b agree  that the landcoroner have a concurrent one in the statute of r which give the  admiralty a jurisdiction in great river in the case of death and maihem there  be no exclusive word of the coroner of a county and consequent his ancient  jurisdiction remain neither be any mention therein make of a ship be in or out  of commission which as lee c j observe seem to be a distinction find only on  the last provision in the statute of car nor can this make any difference in  the present case unless the judge of the admiralty have actual appoint a  deputycoroner to be in the ship when in commission which do not appear in this  case then the landcoroner have be refuse the execute a lawful authority and  without any inquisition be take on the other side and as probin just say in  the case of a concurrent jurisdiction he who first exercise it ought not to be  hinder or interrupt therein and his execution thereof be a o/d excuse to the  other in not do any thing in the matter and suppose that the admiralty have in  this case the sole jurisdiction here have be a great breach of duty the court  say further that though no imputation be here lie on the captain as wilful  oppose justice but only as act under a misapprehension of have a right to do  as he have do yet as this be a matter of great and public concern a  information be proper for as lee c j say a information be grantable not only  where thing be do malicious or forcible but also where Andrews person be  hinder or refuse the exercise a lawful authority as where a mandamus be not  comply with though in case of a private nature where there bath be no apparent  design of do wrong a information have indeed be often deny and c I say that it  seem very difficult to maintain a action in this case and that he remember a  case where a action be bring for refuse to admit a person into a vestryroom  and it be great debate whether the action be maintainable but never determine  it be also say by the c I that in case of a untimely death a view ought to he  have as soon as may be after the fact commit and if possible while the body be  in the same position and other circumstance it be in when the person die and  it be the duty of person in who house such accident happen to give immediate  notice to the proper officer for this purpose but in the present case he say a  good reason be give for removal of the body videlicet that this be do to  prevent infection Andrews er p a information be therefore grant against the  captain but not against the boatswain nor be it much press against he by the  prosecutor counsel as he act only by the order of the captain