IN the long Vacation Sir John Scott His Majefty's Attorney General was appointed to fucceed the late Lord Chief Juftice EYRE in this Court, and was created a Peer of Great Britain by the title of Baron ELDON of Eldon in the county Palatine of Durham. His Lordship's promotion taking place during the Vacation, the 39 Geo. 3. c. 113. was paffed, authorizing His Majefty when a vacancy happens on the Bench during the Vacation, to call any Barrister to the degree of Serjeant, and appoint fuch perfon to the Bench. Under this act Lord ELDON was called and appointed. The motto on his rings was "Rege incolumi mens omnibus una." On the first day of Michaelmas Term His Lordship took his feat in this court and the oaths. Alan Chambre of Gray's Inn Efquire, was alfo appointed one of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer, on the refignation of Mr. Baron Perryn, and was knighted. His promotion, which took place previous to that of Lord ELDON, was alfo during the Vacation, and he was therefore called to the degree of Serjeant, under a particular act paffed for that purpose (39 Geo. 3. c. 67.) and gave rings with this motto, "Majorum inftituta tueri.” Sir John Mitford His Majefty's Solicitor General fucceeded Lord ELDON as Attorney General. William Grant Efquire, the Chief Justice of Chester, was appointed Solicitor General, and was knighted. CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER, IN Eafter Term, In the Thirty-feventh Year of the Reign of GEORGE III. 1797. PIETERS and Another v. LUYTJES. May 3d. E BLANC Serjt. moved for a rule to fhew cause why the The Court will Defendant in this action should not be discharged on entering a common appearance, and all further proceedings be flayed. The caufe of action arose on an inftrument dated the 5th Nov. 1794, executed by the Defendant before a notary at Amfterdam in Holland; whereby he "declared that he was well and truly indebted to the Plaintiffs merchants of that place, in a fum of 9190 guilders and 3 ftuivers, Holland's current money, arifing from and out of fundry merchandizes fold and delivered to him on the 30th October 1794, agreeably to the invoice delivered." The affidavit of debt which was made by a third perfon, ftated that the Plaintiff at the time when the faid affidavit was made, was refident at Amfterdam. By 34 Geo. 3. c.9.f.1. It is enacted, that if any person refiding or being in Great Britain, fhall after the ift day of March VOL. I. not discharge a Defendant on a common appearance under the on the ground 34 G. 3. c. 9. f.7., of the Plaintiff's Holland. by a third perfon need not itate a connection be hold to ba I made tween the depo nent and the Plaintiff. 1797. PIETERS. v. LUYTJES. 1794, and during the war, knowingly and wilfully pay, fend, fupply, or deliver, or cause to be paid, fent, fupplied, or delivered, either in Great Britain or France, or in any other country either by payment or remittance of any bill of exchange, note, draft, obligation, or order for money, or in any other manner whatfoever, any money to or for the use of the perfons exercifing or who shall exercise the powers of government in France, or to or for the use of any perfons or person who on the ift day of January 1794 were or was or at any time fince have or has been, or who at the time of fuch act done fhall be within any of the dominions of France, or any county, territory, or place, which was on the faid ift day of January 1794, or which shall be, during the faid war and at the time of fuch act done, under the government of the perfons exercifing or who fhall hereafter exercise the powers of government in France, every person fo offending, being thereof lawfully convicted or attainted, shall be deemed, declared, and adjudged to be a traitor, and shall suffer pains of death, and shall also lose and forfeit as in cases of high treafon. And by fection 7th, it is further enacted, that if any action or fuit, either in law or equity, fhall be commenced or profecuted for the recovery of any debt or demand, contrary to the provifions of this act, it fhall and may be lawful for the Court in which fuch action or fuit fhall be commenced, in term time, or any one or more of the judges of fuch court, out of term, in a fummary way to discharge the Defendant or Defendants arrested on mefne procefs, and to stay all further proceedings in fuch action or fuit, upon fuch terms as to fuch Court or Judge respectively shall appear neceffary to enforce the provifions of this act. It was infifted on the part of the Defendant, that Amfterdam at the time of the arreft was under the dominion of the perfons exercifing the powers of government in France, and that the Plaintiff being refident there, this was a demand contrary to the provifions of the above act. Per Curiam. Can we take notice that Amfterdam is under the dominion of France? The Court will hardly receive evidence of the influence of France over Holland: actual poffeffion, as of Flanders, might bring a case of this kind within the meaning of the act. But in Holland there is a government de facto, however that government may be influenced by French councils (a).-There is no ground for the application. (a) See the opinion of Blackstone J. in Rafael v. Verelot. 2 Bl. 985. Le Le Blanc then objected to the affidavit on which the Defendant was arrested, because it did not ftate any connection between the deponent and the parties to the fuit. Sed per Curiam. It is not neceffary for the connection to appear on the face of the affidavit. The deponent fwears pofitively to the debt, and that is fufficient. 1797. PIETERS ข. LUYTJES. Rule refused. TENANT V. ELLIOTT. SSUMPSIT for money had and received. May 5th. 8 T.R. 576. Poft, 277. 297. 3 Taun. 8. 7 Vez. Jun. 473. Verdict for the 4. having re ceived money to the ufe of B. on an illegal contract between B. and C, thall not be allowed to fet up the contract as a the illegality of defence, in an action brought by B. for money The Defendant being a broker, effected an infurance for the Plaintiff, a British fubject, on goods from Oftend to the Eaft Indies, on board the Koenitz, an Imperial ship. The ship being loft, the underwriters paid the amount of the insurance to the Defendant, who, without any intimation from them to retain the money, refused to pay it over to the Plaintiff. Shepherd Serjt. now moved for a rule to fhew caufe why the had and received. verdict in this cafe fhould not be fet afide and a non-fuit entered. By 7 Geo. 1. ftat. 1. c. 21. f. 2. It is enacted "That all contracts " and agreements whatsoever made or entered into by any of His "Majefty's fubjects, or any person or persons in truft for them, "for or upon the loan of any monies by way of bottomry on any "fhip or fhips in the fervice of foreigners, and bound or defigned "to trade in the East Indies, or parts in the faid act before " mentioned; and all contracts and agreements whatsoever made 66 by any of His Majesty's subjects, or any person or persons in "truft for them, for the loading or supplying any such ship or "fhips with a cargo or lading of any fort of goods, merchandize, "treafure, or effects, or with any provifions, ftores, or neceffaries, "fhall be and are hereby declared to be void." Now the goods on board the Koenitz being the property of the Plaintiff, a fubject of Great Britain, and the Koenitz being a foreign fhip, bring this tranfaction within the provifions of the above act. In Camden v. Anderfon, 6 Term Rep. 730. it was determined, that a policy effected in contravention of an act of parliament, made for the purpose of protecting the monopoly granted to the Eaft India Company, was void. The voyage being illegal, makes the policy illegal alfo. If then the Plaintiff could not have fucceeded in an action B 2 |