&28 FEDERAL REPORTER. �In England the question whether a suit will lie in the admiralty courts under Lord CampbeU's act is still unsettled. Sir Eobert Phillimore sustained the jurisdiotion, with some hesitation, in the case of The Gvldfaxe, L. £.2 Ad. & Ec. 325, and again in The Explorer, L. B. 3 Ad, & Ec. 359. These rulings were affirmed by the privy council in The Beta, L. E. 2 P. C. 447. The question again arose in the case of The Franconia, 3 Asp. Maritime Law Cases, 415, 435, wherein the court of admiralty again asserted its jurisdiotion. On appeal to the new appellate court the lord justices were equally divided in opinion. In a similar case (Smith v. Brown L. E. 6 Q. B. 720) the court of queen's benoh issued a writ of prohibition to the admiralty court. See Marsden on Col- lisions, 64. �The whole controversy turned upon the construction to be given to the word "damage" in the admiralty court act, the court of queen's bench contending that the application of this word should be limited to cases of damage to property, while the privy council considered that it applied equally to injuries to persons. As the jurisdiction of admiralty courts in this country ia not fixed or limited by any similar statute, these decisions throw but litlle light upon the question. �Upon the whole I think the exceptions should be overrnled. If I am in error the supreme court will, upon application for a writ of prohibition, afford a summary and speedy relief. �NoTB. See, also, In re Long liland., etc., ante, 607. ���END or OASHS IN VOL. B ����
