AWARD OF THE FISHERY COMMISSION. 3395 



pose of curing, and not of procuring food only, as was averred. So, in 

 this case, three or four codfish are admitted to have been taken within 

 the limits; but I have not taken that circumstance at all into account, 

 considering it too trifling to be a ground of condemnation. 



"In the case of the Reicarcl,2 Dodson Adui. Kepts., 269, 270 Sir 

 William Scott, observed : 



"The Court is not bound to a strictness at once harsh and pedantic in 

 the application;of Statutes. The Court permits the qualification implied 

 in the ancient maxim, ' De minimus non curat lex.' When there are 

 irregularities of very slight consequence, it does not intend that the 

 infliction of penalties should be inflexibly severe. If the deviation were 

 a mere trifle, (and the catching of a few codfish for a meal is such), 

 weighing little or nothing in the public interest, it might properly be 

 overlooked." 



" Upon the other grounds, however, on which I have enlarged, I con- 

 ceive it my duty to declare the A. J. Franklin, her apparel and cargo, for- 

 feited, with costs, and her value, wln-n collected from the Bail, distrib- 

 uted under the Act of 1868." 



No. 5. 



[Extract from the Halifax Daily Reporter and Times, Novr. 15, 1871.] 



In the Vice Admiralty Court, 1871. 

 The "J. H. Xickerson" 



" Sir William Young, Judge Vice Admiralty, pronounced the follow- 

 ing judgment in the above cause: 



" This is an American Fishing vessel of seventy tons burthen, owned 

 at Salem, Massachusetts, and sailing under a Fishing License issued by 

 the Collector of that Port, and dated March 25th, A. D., 1869. In the 

 month of June 1870, she was seized by Captain Tory of the Dominion 

 Schooner Ida E., while in the North Bay of Ingonish, Cape Breton, 

 about three or four cable lengths from the shore ; and it appeared the 

 offense charged against her was that she had run into that Bay for the 

 purpose of procuring bait, had persisted in remaining there for that 

 purpose after warning to depart therefrom, and not to return, and had 

 procured or purchased bait while there. This case, therefore, differs 

 essentially from the cases I have already decided. It comes within the 

 charge of preparing to fish a phrase to be found in all the, British and 

 Colonial Acts, but not in the Treaty of 1818. In giving judgment 10th 

 February last, in the case of the A. J. Franklin, I referred to the case 

 in hand, and stated that I would pronounce judgment in this also in a 

 few days, which I was prepared to do. But it was intimated to the 

 Court that some compromise or settlement might possibly take place in 

 reference to the instructions that had been issued from time to time to 

 the cruisers, and to the negociations pending between thu two Govern- 

 ments, and I have accordingly suspended judgment until now, whenjt 

 has been formally moved for. 



"The same asguments were urged at the hearing of this cause as in 

 the case of the Wampatuck on the wisdom of the Treaty of 1818, and 

 some severe strictures were passed on the spirit and tendency of the 

 Two Dominion Acts of 1808 and 1870. To all such arguments and stric- 

 tures the same answer must be given in this as in my former judgments. 



