評論
打印
These pleadings, and the counter pleadings, being duly heard, the very learned Judge in set terms decided, to wit,— That as for the boat, he awarded it to the plaintiffs, because they had merely abandoned it to save their lives; but that with regard to the controverted whale, harpoons, and line, they belonged to the defendants; the whale, because it was a Loose-Fish at the time of the final capture; and the harpoons and line because when the fish made off with them, it (the fish) acquired a property in those articles; and hence anybody who afterwards took the fish had a right to them. Now the defendants afterwards took the fish; ergo, the aforesaid articles were theirs.
聽了這些答辯和反答辯后，那個學問十分淵博的法官就明確地做了決定，就是說，——關于那只小艇，他把它判還原告，因為原告只是為了自救才拋棄小艇；至于說到有爭論的鯨、標槍和繩索，應歸被告所有；因為那條鯨在最后被捕到時是條無主鯨；標槍和繩索則因為當時都跟鯨一起拖著走，它（那條鯨）就擁有這些東西的所有權；因此以后任何人取得了鯨，就取得了這些東西的所有權。現在被告既然后來取得了鯨，那么，上述這些東西就該歸他們所有。
A common man looking at this decision of the very learned Judge, might possibly object to it. But ploughed up to the primary rock of the matter, the two great principles laid down in the twin whaling laws previously quoted, and applied and elucidated by Lord Ellenborough in the above cited case; these two laws touching Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish, I say, will on reflection, be found the fundamentals of all human jurisprudence; For notwithstanding its complicated tracery of sculpture, the Temple of the Law, like the Temple of the Philistines, has but two props to stand on.
一個普通人看到這個學問十分淵博的法官的決定，也許會提出異議。不過，如果對這事情加以探本究源一下，研究上面所引的那兩條在捕鯨法中所規定的、并且已經為埃倫巴勒勛爵應用于上述一案，而且解釋得一清二楚的這兩大原則，那么，我認為，仔細一想，就會覺得這兩條關于有主鯨和無主鯨的法律，是一切人類法律的根本原則了；因為，法律的圣殿，盡管它象非利士的圣殿那樣，有著錯綜復雜的雕塑窗飾，可是支撐著它的，就正是這兩根支柱。
Is it not a saying in every one's mouth, Possession is half of the law: that is, regardless of how the thing came into possession?
這可不是眾口所傳的俗諺嗎？有了所有權就有了一半的法律，也就是說，不管那件東西是怎樣搞到手的。
