In the way in which this case has shaped itself the defence is narrowed down to the general plea of justification under the Order in Council and as to the warrant that was issued, and as to the question of notice. I pass over the second plea, because it relates to a document called the warrant, which is not in evidence, but which, upon the evidence taken, was not in the hands of the respondent at the time when the acts complained of were committed, and of which he knew nothing at that time. Speaking, then, to the third plea, which is justification under the warrant actually in evidence, and throughout the case was known as Exhibit B, I am of opinion that, upon the face of it, that warrant was no authority to Robertson, to whom it was given, to remove the plaintiff to Suva. Robertson was the supercargo of the steamer, the Moresby, on which both plaintiff and Oliphant came from Gizo on the journey from the Solomon Islands to Sydney, at which port the Moresby ended her voyage. Looking at the words of the warrant, they are addressed to "George Robertson and other officers of the Court." Robertson was not an officer of the Court when he left Gizo, and was not even colourably an officer of the Court, unless the appointment of him made at Brisbane River in Australia made him an officer, as to which it is not necessary to express an opinion. "Robertson and other officers" were commanded to convey Hazelton to Sydney, and "there to deliver him to the magistrate, gaoler, or other officer to whom it may appertain to give effect to any sentence passed by the Court there exercising criminal jurisdiction, together with this warrant, or a duplicate thereof."