Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:07:50.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lambiris Skiriotes v. State of Florida*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , July 1941 , pp. 569 - 575
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

61 S. Ct. 924 (1941).

References

1 The statute, originally Section 4 of Chapter 7389 of the Laws of Florida of 1917, carried forward as Section 5846 of the Revised General Statutes of Florida and as Section 8087 of the Compiled General Laws of 1927, is as follows:

“It shall be unlawful for any person, persons, firm or corporation to maintain and use for the purpose of catching or taking commercial sponges from the Gulf of Mexico, or the Straits of Florida or other waters within the territorial limits of the State of Florida, diving suits, helmets or other apparatus used by deep sea divers.

“Anyone violating any of the provisions of this section shall be fined in the sum not exceeding five hundred dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.” See Lipscomb v. Gialourakis, 101 Fla. 1130.

2 See Jessup, The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction, Introductory Chapter, p. XXXIII, also pp. 9 et seq., 80 et seq.; Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch 187; The Grace and Ruby, 283 Fed. 475; The Henry L. Marshall, 286 Fed. 260, 292 Fed. 486; United States v. Ford, 3 F. (2d) 643; 40 Harv. L. R. 1.

3 Oppenheim, International Law, 4th ed., Vol. I, § 145, p. 281; Story, Conflict of Laws, 8th ed., § 540, p. 755; Moore’s International Law Digest, Vol. II, pp. 255, 256; Hyde, International Law, Vol. I, § 240, p. 424; Borchard, Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad, § 13, pp. 21, 22.

4 As to venue of prosecutions for offenses committed upon the high seas or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any particular state or district see 28 U. S. C, Sec. 102.

5 This Act repealed the Act of June 20, 1906, 34 Stat. 313, which was before this court in the case of The Abby Dodge, 223 U. S. 166.

6 The bill in this case was dismissed because of the absence of the jurisdictional amount. Pope v. Blanton, 299 U. S. 521.

7 15 Stat. 73.

8 Act of March 3, 1845, 5 Stat. 742.