386 PARLIAMENTS OF THE DOMINIONS [parr m1
of the Commonwealth Courts and the operation of the
Commonwealth laws extend only to places within the
Commonwealth except so far as a larger jurisdiction or
operation is given to them by law.’ O’Connor J. said :
‘The jurisdiction of that Court (the Commonwealth Court
of Conciliation and Arbitration), as of any other Commonwealth
 Court, must, of course, be confined within the territorial
 limits over which the laws of the Commonwealth
extend, and it is conceded that, apart from the provisions
of 8. 5 of the covering clauses of the constitution, those
laws could have no operation beyond the three miles sea
limit around Commonwealth territory.’
[t has sometimes been thought that there is an exception to
this rule in the case of The Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation
 Company v. Kingston! The circumstances of the judgement
 in that case are important and may be given at length.
The action out of which this appeal arises was brought
by the Minister of State for Trade and Customs of the
Commonwealth of Australia against one Charles Gadd, the
master of the British merchant ship Oceana, belonging to
the Appellant Company, for penalties under two sections of
the Act No. 6 of 1901 of the Commonwealth of Australia,
being the Customs Act, 1901.
The facts are not in dispute, and are set out in the statement
 of claim and admitted by the defence.
The Oceana had on her arrival in the Port of Sydney
goods liable to duty, and, after her arrival, more goods were
shipped on board. Upon none of the goods in question were
duties paid, although all of them were liable to duty, but
by the arrangement contemplated and in pursuance of the
Customs Act in question, the goods were secured on board
the Oceana by the Customs officer by placing Customs seals
upon parts of the ship in which they were stored.
After the ship left the Port of Sydney for Melbourne, and
while on the voyage, the defendant caused the receptacles
for these goods to be opened and the Customs seals to be
broken. During the voyage, and afterwards during the
ship’s stay in the Port of Melbourne, the stores were used by
the passengers and crew and for the service of the ship.

- [1903] A. C. 471, on appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria, 27
V. L. R. 418.