« 이전계속 »
Welles (Sir H. Goring v.) Page 395
371 White v. Dent
341 Wagftaff (Crowder v.) Page 18 Whitelock v. Hedden
243 Walker v. Constable 306 Williams v. Bartholomew
326 Wall (Morris v.)
329 Walter (Curry v.)
334 Walwyn v. St. Quintin 652 Wilson (Marryat v.)
430 Waghorne v. Langmead 571 v. Saunders
267 Ward (Cheetham v.) 630 Wilton v. Hamilton
445 Wafon (Symmers v.)
316 Waterfield (Williams v.) 334 Wood (Fenn d. Blanchard v.) 573 Watson (Steventon v.) 365 Woodhouse (Lang v.)
31 Watt v. Daniel
425 Wyatt v.
344 Watts v. Hart 134 Wyburd v. Tuck
458 Weaver (Evans v.)
20 Wilie (Bryfon v.) Webb v. Herne
281 Webb v. Matthew
225 Webb v. Pritchett
Y Webb v. Thomson
5 Weddall v. Berger
325 Yea Sir W. (Sir B. Hammett v.) 144
IN the long Vacation Sir John Scott His Majesty's Attorney
General was appointed to succeed 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 Gco. 3. c. 113. was passed, authorizing His Majesty when a vacancy happens on the Bench during the Vacation, to call any Barrister to the degrec of Serjeant, and appoint such person 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 firit day of Michaelmas Term His Lordship took his feat in this court and the oaths.
Alan Chambre of Gray's Inn Esquire, was also 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 also during the Vacation, and he was therefore called to the degree of Serjeant, under a particular act pafled for that purpose ( 39 Geo. 3. c. 67.) and gave rings with this motto, “ Majorum instituta tueri.”
Sir John Mitford His Majesty's Solicitor General succeeded
Lord Eldon as Attorney General.
William Grant Esquire, the Chief Justice of Chester, was ap
pointed Solicitor General, and was knighted.
ARGUED AND DETERMINED
THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS
In the Thirty-seventh Year of the Reign of GEORGE III.
ance under the 34 G. 184.108.40.206.703
PIETERS and Another v. LUYTJES.
May 3d. LE BLANC Serjt
. moved for a rule to thew cause why the The Court will Defendant in this action should not be discharged on en- hot ditcharge a tering a common appearance, and all further proceedings be common appearftaved.
The cause of action arose on an instrument dated the 5th Nov. on the ground 1994, executed by the Defendant before a notary at Amsterdam of the Plaintiff's in Holland; whereby he “ declared that he was well and truly Holland. indebted to the Plaintiffs merchants of that place, in a sum of All affi-avit to 9190 guilders and 3 ftuivers, Holland's current money, arising hy a third person from and out of fundry merchandizes fold and delivered to him need net itate a on the zoth Oktober 1794, agreeably to the invoice delivered.” connection be
(w zen the depo The affidavit of debt which was made by a third person, stated nent and the that the Plaintiff at the time when the said affidavit was made, was refident at Amsterdam.
By 34 Geo. 3. c.9.§.1. It is enacted, that if any person residing or being in Great Britain, shall after the ift day of March POL I.
1794, and during the war, knowingly and wilfully pay, send, supply, 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 whatsoever, any money to or for the use of the persons exercising or who shall exercise the powers of government in France, or to or for the use of any persons or person who on the ist day of January 1794 were or was or at any time since have or has been, or who at the time of such act done shall be within any of the dominions of France, or any county, territory, or place, which was on the said ift day of January 1794, or which shall be, during the said war and at the time of such act done, under the government of the persons exercising or who shall 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 thall also lose and forfeit as in cases of high treason.
And by section 7th, it is further enacted, that if any action or fuit, either in law or equity, shall be commenced or prosecuted for the recovery of any debt or demand, contrary to the provisions of this act, it shall and may be lawful for the Court in which such action or suit shall be commenced, in term time, or any one or more of the judges of such court, out of term, in a summary way to discharge the Defendant or Defendants arrested on mesne process, and to stay all further proceedings in such action or fuit, upon such terms as to such Court or Judge respectively shall appear necessary to enforce the provisions of this act.
It was insisted on the part of the Defendant, that Amsterdam at the time of the arreft was under the dominion of the persons exercising the powers of government in France, and that the Plaintiff being refident there, this was a demand contrary to the provisions of the above act.
Per Curiam. Can we take notice that Amsterdam 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.
(e) See the opinion of Blackstone J. ia Rafael v. Verelot. 2 BI.985.
Le Blanc then objected to the affidavit on which the Defendant was arrested, because it did not state any connection between the deponent and the parties to the fuit.
Sed per Curiam. It is not necessary for the connection to appear on the face of the affidavit. The deponent swears pofitively to the debt, and that is sufficient.
8 T.R. 576. TENANT V. ELLIOTT.
Pos, 277. 297. 3 Taun. 8.
7 Vez. Jun.473. ASSUMPSIT for money had and received. Verdict for the A. having rePlaintiff.
ceived money to
the ule of B. on The Defendant being a broker, effected an insurance for the anillcgal contract
between B. and Plaintiff, a British subject, on goods from Ostend to the East Indies, C, thall not be on board the Koenitz, an Imperial ship. The ship being loft, the allowed to set up underwriters paid the amount of the insurance to the Defendant, the contract as a who, without any intimation from them to retain the money, defence, in an
action brought refused to pay it over to the Plaintiff.
by B. for money Shepherd Serjt. now moved for a rule to fhew cause why the had and received. verdict in this case should not be set aside and a non-fuit entered. By 7 Geo. 1. ftat. 1. C.21. . 2. It is enacted « That all contracts * and agreements whatsoever made or entered into by any of His “ Majesty'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 ships in the service of foreigners, and bound or designed * to trade in the East Indies, or parts in the said act before “ mentioned; and all contracts and agreements whatsoever made “ by any of His Majesty's subjects, or any person or persons in “ trust for them, for the loading or supplying any such fhip or “ ships with a cargo or lading of any sort of goods, merchandize, “ treasure, or effects, or with any provisions, ftores, or necessaries, “ shall be and are hereby declared to be void.” Now the goods on board the Koenitz being the property of the Plaintiff, a subject of Great Britain, and the Koenitz being a foreign ship, bring this transaction within the provisions 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 East India Company, was void. The voyage being illegal, makes the policy illegal allo. If then the Plaintiff could not have succeeded in an