Frederick Gerring Jr. (Ship) v. The Queen

Frederick Gerring Jr. (Ship) v. The Queen

Majority held that "fishing" includes the continuous operations required to reduce fish to actual possession; therefore a foreign vessel that had fish in a pursed seine and was baling those fish while within three marine miles was engaged in "fishing" and liable to condemnation and forfeiture under the Convention of 1818 and relevant Imperial and Canadian statutes; alternatively entry into territorial waters for the purpose of securing fish when not permitted by treaty/statute is itself unlawful and grounds for forfeiture.

Citation
(1897) 27 SCR 271
Parties
Appellant (owner of Vessel): The Ship "Frederick Gerring Jr.", appellant; Respondent (crown): Her Majesty The Queen
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 1897
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Appeal / Fisheries Treaty Enforcement / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (admiralty District of Nova Scotia)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs (majority).
Legal Topics
Convention of 1818, Three‑mile Territorial Limit, Definition of "fishing", Forfeiture of Vessels, Purse Seine Prohibition, Jurisdiction of Territorial Waters
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Admiralty International Law Fisheries Law Statutory Interpretation Convention of 1818 Three‑mile Territorial Limit Definition of "fishing" +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Ship "Frederick Gerring Jr.", appellant

Appellant (owner of Vessel)

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent (crown)

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Appeal / Fisheries Treaty Enforcement / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From Exchequer Court (admiralty District of Nova Scotia)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether baling fish from a purse seine that was set and pursed outside the three‑mile limit but being emptied while the vessel lay inside three miles constitutes "fishing" under the Convention of 1818 and applicable statutes
  2. 2 Whether the vessel was within the three‑mile territorial limit when seized
  3. 3 Whether the vessel (and cargo, tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture and stores) was liable to condemnation and forfeiture under Imperial and Canadian statutes

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held that "fishing" includes the continuous operations required to reduce fish to actual possession; therefore a foreign vessel that had fish in a pursed seine and was baling those fish while within three marine miles was engaged in "fishing" and liable to condemnation and forfeiture under the Convention of 1818 and relevant Imperial and Canadian statutes; alternatively entry into territorial waters for the purpose of securing fish when not permitted by treaty/statute is itself unlawful and grounds for forfeiture.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs (majority).

Orders

  • Vessel condemned and forfeited
  • Cargo, tackle, rigging, apparel, furniture and stores condemned and forfeited