Why, sir,' said the lawyer, 'if the persecution were tortious, and if it happened at sea, or even on fresh water or reasonably damp land, the Admiralty court would no doubt have cognizance.''Pray, sir,' said Stephen, 'just how damp would the land have to be?''Oh, pretty damp, pretty damp, I believe. The judge's patent gives him power to deal with matters in, upon, or by the sea, or public streams, or freshwater ports, rivers, nooks and places between the ebb and flow of the tide, and upon the shores and banks adjacent - all tolerably humid.
The dialogue between the lawyer and Stephen explores the legal jurisdiction of the Admiralty court regarding tortious acts. The lawyer explains that such acts can be addressed by the court if they occur at sea, on fresh water, or on sufficiently damp land. Stephen humorously inquires about the exact level of dampness required for the court's involvement, highlighting the ambiguity in the law.
The lawyer's response emphasizes the court's broad authority, which includes various bodies of water and even humid locations adjacent to them. This conversation illustrates not only the complexities of maritime law but also infuses humor into the serious nature of legal proceedings, making the intricacies of jurisdiction more accessible and engaging.
