APPENDIX. 27 



Gerring, Jr., was found bailing fish out of her seine was within 

 three miles of Gull Ledge. This question of fact has been dis- 

 tinctly found in favour of the Crown by the Court below, and it 

 is submitted that such finding is conclusive on this point under the 

 well established principles governing the dealings of Courts of 

 last resort with findings of fact. The Frederick Gerring, Jr., 

 was found bailing fish out of her seine by the Dominion Fishery 

 Cruiser Aberdeen, and the evidence of the officers of the Aberdeen 

 is distinct and unequivocal as to the bearings of the locality where 

 the Gerring then was. And it has been clearly proved, and is not 

 questioned, that if the Gerring was in the position testified to by 

 the officers of the Aberdeen she was within three miles of Gull 

 Ledge. 



This evidence together with that of Captain McKenzie of the 

 Dominion Fishery Cruiser Vigilant, which was also in the vicinity, 

 clearly esta])lished that the locality in question was within three 

 marine miles of Gull Ledge. 



On behalf of the appellants the only evidence produced as to 

 this question of fact was that of the Master and crew of the 

 Frederick Gerring, Jr. and certain opinion evidence given by 

 nautical experts called on behalf of the appellants. 



The Master and crew of the Frederick Gerring, Jr. were unable 

 to give any evidence of the bearings of their vessel at the time; and 

 could only guess at her distance from the shore, and it is uncon- 

 tradicted that the Master of the Frederick Gerring, Jr. stated before 

 the trial that he could not swear whether his vessel was inside or 

 outside the limit. See page 35, 1. 20. The expert evidence 

 produced on behalf of the appellants will be found on examination 

 to be wholly unreliable as a basis for establishing the position of the 

 Frederick Gerring, Jr. at the time when she was found taking 

 fish out of her seine by the Captain of the Aberdeen. And it is 

 submitted that the learned judge below could not have done 

 otherwise than accept the positive evidence as to the place where 

 t-he ship was; rather than the opinions of the few experts, whom 

 the appellants were al>le to find willing to say; that in their 

 judgment it was improbable or impossible, in view of the position 

 of the vessel a short time before, that she could have l)een at llic 

 place where it is proved she was about six o'clock p.m. on the 25th 

 day of May, 1896. 



