Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 288 views

    US Vs Bull

    Uploaded by

    Map Compass
    1. The appellant was convicted of negligence as the captain of a ship transporting animals from Fermosa to Manila, Philippines, which resulted in the animals being tossed, bruised, and dying within 3 miles of Manila Bay. 2. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case because when the ship entered within 3 miles of Manila Bay's territorial waters, it became subject to local laws and jurisdiction, unless exempted by treaty. No such treaty exemption applied in this case. 3. The court also found that the legislation under which the appellant was convicted was constitutional, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The appellant's conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    US Vs Bull

    Uploaded by

    Map Compass
    288 views2 pages
    1. The appellant was convicted of negligence as the captain of a ship transporting animals from Fermosa to Manila, Philippines, which resulted in the animals being tossed, bruised, and dying within 3 miles of Manila Bay. 2. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case because when the ship entered within 3 miles of Manila Bay's territorial waters, it became subject to local laws and jurisdiction, unless exempted by treaty. No such treaty exemption applied in this case. 3. The court also found that the legislation under which the appellant was convicted was constitutional, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The appellant's conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    US vs Bull

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The appellant was convicted of negligence as the captain of a ship transporting animals from Fermosa to Manila, Philippines, which resulted in the animals being tossed, bruised, and dying within 3 miles of Manila Bay. 2. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case because when the ship entered within 3 miles of Manila Bay's territorial waters, it became subject to local laws and jurisdiction, unless exempted by treaty. No such treaty exemption applied in this case. 3. The court also found that the legislation under which the appellant was convicted was constitutional, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The appellant's conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    288 views2 pages

    US Vs Bull

    Uploaded by

    Map Compass
    1. The appellant was convicted of negligence as the captain of a ship transporting animals from Fermosa to Manila, Philippines, which resulted in the animals being tossed, bruised, and dying within 3 miles of Manila Bay. 2. The court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case because when the ship entered within 3 miles of Manila Bay's territorial waters, it became subject to local laws and jurisdiction, unless exempted by treaty. No such treaty exemption applied in this case. 3. The court also found that the legislation under which the appellant was convicted was constitutional, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The appellant's conviction and sentence were affirmed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    US vs Bull Ponente: Elliott, J.

    Facts: The appellant was convicted in the Court of the First Instance of Violation of Sec. 1 of Act No. 275. H. N. Bull was then and there master of a steam sailing vessel known as Standard. It transported animals from Fermosa to Manila, Philippines. Due to the negligence of the captain of the ship, by not properly securing the animals during the voyage the same were tossed, bruised and died within 3 miles from off shore of Manila Bay.

    Issues:
    1. Facts are not sufficient to confer upon the court jurisdiction.

    2. That under the evidence the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. 3. Whether or not Act No. 55 as amended is unconstitutional. 4. Evidence is insufficient to support conviction.

    Ruling:
    1. The citizenship of the Standard was Norwegian and therefore not registered in the

    Philippine Islands. No court of the Philippine Islands had jurisdiction over an offense or crime committed on the high seas or within the territorial waters of any other country but when she came within 3 miles of a line drawn from the headlands which embrace the entrance to Manila Bay, she was within territorial waters and the new set of principles became applicable.

    French theory matters happening on board a merchant ship which do not concern the tranquillity of the port or persons foreign to the crew are justiciable only by the courts of the country to which the vessel belongs.

    Hall; it is admitted that merchant vessels enter the ports of a foreign state they become subject to the local jurisdiction on all points in which the interests of the country are

    touched. The US adheres to the principle that when a ship enters into a foreign port it is subject to the jurisdiction of a local authorities unless waived.

    The USSC merchant vessels of one country visiting the ports of another for the purpose oftrade, subject themselves to the laws of the port they visit, as well in war as in peace, unless otherwise provided by treaty. The treaty does not therefore deprive the local courts of jurisdiction over offences committed on board a merchant vessel by one member of the crew against the other which amount to a disturbance of the order or tranquillity of the country. The offense of the captain is not different when committed by an ordinary crew. Philippine courts are not deprived of jurisdiction.

    2. The appellants argument that Act No. 55 is unconstitutional is erroneous. We are therefore satisfied that the Commission had and the Legislature now has, full constitutional power to enact laws for the regulations of commerce between foreign countries and the ports of the Philippine Islands and that Act No. 55 as amended by Act No. 275 is valid.

    3. The defendant is found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of 250 pesos with subsidiary

    imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay costs. Sentence and judgment is affirmed.

    You might also like