The Express.
London, England, 1862-05-28 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER

Bitting, in Banco in Trinity Term.—(Before the Lord Chief
Baron and Barone Bramwell, Martin, and Channell.)

SCOTT O. WED SIITYOUR.-AIitiLULT.-JUDGMENT.

This was an action for assault and battery, argued last
term, upon demurrer to pleas, and in which judgment bad
been deferred. The alleged assault was committed by the
defendant, Lord Seymour, upon the plaintiff at Naples, and
the defendant pleaded several pleas, which raised the ques-
tion whether this court had jurisdiction in the case, the acts
complained of having teen committed in a foreign country.
The Loral Chief Baron in now delivering the judgmont of
the court, said it was concluded by the authorities that the
circumstance of an assault and battery having been com-
mitted in a foreign country was in itself no impediment to
an action being maintained for it here. Had it appeared
that by the law of that country an action was maintain-
able for it there, they thought none would be here,
and this raised the first question—what was the meaning of
the first plea' The defendant argued that it meant
that proceedings to punish him had been taken in
Naples, and that except those proceedings none
could be taken, and that therefore none could be
taken to recover damages ; but they held that it meant
that proceedings bad been taken in the Neapolitan court,
and except those none can be maintained. If so, it did
not negative that those were proceedings in which com-
pensation or damages might be recovered. This then was
• wrung for which au action would lie here, and for
which it might be assumed one would lie in
Naples, and it was no defence to the present action that
proceedings at the instance of the plaintiff were pending in
the Neapolitan court. It could be no defence at bar, nor
an answer even iu abatement of the writ, that an action wee
pending here iu au inferior court, and how in law
or reason could it be when it was pending in
a foreign court, and when the action was in no sense locaL
The case of „Cox v. Mitchell" was an authority to show
that au action pending abroad for a wrong was no ground foe
staying proceedings in an action in England. For these
reasons they thought that the plea was bad. The
two other pleas demurred to alleged that by the law
of Naples, until the defendant bad been criminally con-
demned no action could be maintained for damages, and that
be had not been condemned. This, however, was a Mere
matter of procedure, and furnished no defence to the
action. Supposing a man in England stole • chattel
and went out to New York. would it be rea-
sonable that the tribunals there should refuse to
entertain the cult of the owner of the article against the
thief till there bad been a prosecution hero' Before the ex-
tradition treaty such an objection would have been pre-
posterous, and it was not really less so now. For these
reasons the court thought that the pleas were bad, and gave
judgment for the plaintiff.
Judgment for plaintiff.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before the Judge Ordinary.)
CLAIM ON V. CLAILISON.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Tristram appeared for the plain.
tiff ; Dr. itillimore, Q.C., for the defendant.
In this MO the defendant, Mn. Margaret Clarkson,
widow, had prorioanged a will of her late husband, dated the
4th of July, 1869 ; sod in July, 1881, the court pronounced