of Derby's Case (2 And. 116), it had been held that the Isle of Man lived by 
its own laws, so neither the Statute of Uses or of Wills bound the inhabitants. 
Sir Francis Pemberton (who had been a Stuart Chief Justice of both King's 
Bench and Common Pleas) appeared for defendant. He took the line that as 
conquest destroyed both government and property rights, old laws did not 
remain and the laws of the conqueror took their place. It was unreasonable 
that Englishmen should lose their law by a conquest, for their law was their 
birthright and was carried wherever they went. Otherwise, by conquest of an 
infidel country English laws would be "subject to those of Alcoran." Pemberton 
adverted to Calvin's Case and some of the precedents there cited, but he 
interpreted Coke's conquest doctrine to mean that by virtue of English possession 
English law remained until the King made some alteration. The point of 
representation was brushed aside; the Statutes of Laborers and of Usury he 
said were not even observed in England, and so this objection was vain. 
Jamaica had jury trial; contracts were made by English methods: "Now this 
is part of the Common Law of England, and if such Laws are used there, what 
reason can be given why statutes made here should not likewise be of force 
there?" 
The case is variously and clumsily reported, 16 but Holt, C. J. is represented 
to have said that in case of an uninhabited country newly found out by English 
subjects all the laws in force in England are in force there. Jamaica was conquered 
and not pleaded to be parcel of the Kingdom of England, but part 
of the possessions of the crown. The laws of England did not take place there 
until declared so by the conqueror. Jamaica was not "bound by our laws unless 
particularly mentioned." Since in Jamaica they had power to make new laws, 
English general laws might be altered by theirs in particulars. Judgment was 
given for the plaintiff. 
This case was decided in Trinity Term, 1693. A few months later, in January, 
1693/4, the case of Dutton v. Howell 17 was argued in the House of Lords. 
This was a final episode in the controversies between Sir John Witham and 
Governor Richard Dutton of Barbados. 18 Witham had recovered in an action 
for false imprisonment brought against Dutton in King's Bench. The incarceration 
had taken place in Barbados, pursuant to a warrant authorized by 
the governor and some of his council. The case came on error to the House of 
Lords after Witham's executors sought by scire facias to revive the judgment. 
Serjeant Levinz and Sir Thomas Powys argued for Dutton that the cause 
was not cognizable at Westminster, for the governor had acted as judge ("he 
™Holt K.B. 341; 2 Salkeld 411; 4 Modern 1 7 Shower, P.C. 24; cf. 15 /. H. of L., 354 
1 H. of L. MSS (n.s.) 311. 
222; Comberbach 228 
18 Supra, Chapter 11, notes 205, 231, 360, 371.