The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-06-01 00:00:00

A POINT IN LAW.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, the cause of "Cherry v.
Thompson" has been heard, and was a breach of promise of
marriage case, in which the gentleman was the plaintiff. It
raised, however, a question of tar more general importance,
as to the rights of parties to sue in the courts of this country
for causes of action arising partly abroad.
The parties in this case, who are both British sub.
jects, suet at Homburg, and became engaged. The
plaintiff, who is an officer in our army, returned to this
country, and some time afterwards, the lady for some
reason, repented of her engagement and—while still
remaining in Germany—she wrote to the plaintiff a
letter received by him in this country, intimating that
she thought the engagement had better be broken
off. Upon this the gentleman brought thisactionagainst
the fickle fair one, and her counsel objected that
the action would not lie in the courts of this country,
she being still abroad, and the course of action having
arisen, if not entirely, at all events, principally abroad.
And in support of this view they relied on a decision
of two Judaea of this Court in a case in which it was
held, some time ago, that under the enactment in the
Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, which allows
parties abroad to be sued in this country if the
cause f action arose here, but the party cannot be
sued unless it entirely arose here. On the other side, on
the part of the plaintiff, it wan asserted that the cause
of action bad entirely scion here, for that a cause of
action on a contract arose when there was a breach,
and therefore at the place where it was broken;
that it was broken here by the delivery of the letter to
the plaintiff in thin country, and that, at all events, it
was only necessary that part of the cause of action
nhoull arise in this couutry to bring the case within
the Act. In nupport of this view a more recent tleci-
siori in the Common Pleas, in which an elaborate
judgment to that effect had been delivered, was relied
on, while both sides relied on decisions in the Court of
Exchequer, where the Judges appear to have been
divided upon the point, and to ha % e ruled at one time
die way and at another time the contrary way. Amid
these contradictory decisions, tic: (7, net had taken Cute
to consider their judgment.
Mr. Justice Blackburn now declared the judgment
of the Court in favour of the lady, the defendant
adhering to the view this Court had taken in the
former case—that the whole cause of action must have
arisen in this country in order to allow of a party living
abroad being sued in the courts of this country. The
learned Judge, in the course of the judgment, which
was long and elaborate, entered fully into the cases,
and arrived at the conclusion that the Judges alto-
gether, taking the numbers who had shared in the dif-
, ferent decisions, had been equally divided upon the
point. If, he said, the question was one of law, which
• could be carried to a Court of Error, the Court would

have followed the last decision, that of the Common I
Pleas. But as it was a point of practice on which there I
could be no review of their decision, they thought it
right to act on their own opinion, and that was adverse
to the view of the Court of Common Pleas. They
thought that "came of action' in the Common Law
Procedure Act meant the whole canoe of action, and as
here the contract was abroad, rood the letter containing
the ref usal was written and proaed abroad and only re-
ceived in this country, they thought that the action
could not be maintained in the courts of this country
against a person ret-ident abroad.