评论
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.
听了这些答辩和反答辩后，那个学问十分渊博的法官就明确地做了决定，就是说，——关于那只小艇，他把它判还原告，因为原告只是为了自救才抛弃小艇；至于说到有争论的鲸、标枪和绳索，应归被告所有；因为那条鲸在最后被捕到时是条无主鲸；标枪和绳索则因为当时都跟鲸一起拖着走，它（那条鲸）就拥有这些东西的所有权；因此以后任何人取得了鲸，就取得了这些东西的所有权。现在被告既然后来取得了鲸，那么，上述这些东西就该归他们所有。
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.
一个普通人看到这个学问十分渊博的法官的决定，也许会提出异议。不过，如果对这事情加以探本究源一下，研究上面所引的那两条在捕鲸法中所规定的、并且已经为埃伦巴勒勋爵应用于上述一案，而且解释得一清二楚的这两大原则，那么，我认为，仔细一想，就会觉得这两条关于有主鲸和无主鲸的法律，是一切人类法律的根本原则了；因为，法律的圣殿，尽管它象非利士的圣殿那样，有着错综复杂的雕塑窗饰，可是支撑着它的，就正是这两根支柱。
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?
这可不是众口所传的俗谚吗？有了所有权就有了一半的法律，也就是说，不管那件东西是怎样搞到手的。
