The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-12 00:00:00

•
Lard Campbell-The affdavit was made against' thee,
Bisbee, and, as spinet hint was before the court. Beth
Wad it be material in what siege of the proceedings It
Meade. It was made by the plaintiff and must be webbase
against him; aid the imams mot be 'whether thaw sIN
&vita show such a state of WingsWl give thaphiallr
;kin to peocined in the original action.
tumii..--seppodai the alklaats wars Mail 4
sod adasitiing that by them it appeased Oil dm mks
brought against the Queen of Spain in Mr awmaass Ws-
tfity-there was nothing to show that Were wee as y aept-
ratios between the funds of the Queen and of tlw nation,
sad it was quite mesh-teat with all that appeared here that
the entire finals of the Dona when once raised, might be
vested in her, with power to exercise authority and juris
diction over Atm by sets of her own-oat least then was
nothing to show any prerogative of borrowing showy NA
refusing to pay it.
Lord Camp bell.-The bonds are brought before us thil
hey are headed ° public debt of Spain, by
end
st▪
ate that they are signed by Queen Christina on behalf of
her daughter, the reigning sovereign of Spain, by virtue of
• decree of the Cones authorising the raising of the
money. We mast presume that there is • constitution of
Spin.
Mr. noggins-We don't know what that decree was, it
might have been merely to give her power to raise • private
low The Caw of the" Dike of Brunswick v. the King et
Hanover (2 Homo of Lards Case.), to which referee*
had been made in moving fur the rule, was different Thad
gem clearly no penonal ol..4ation in that ease, the ad IMF
planted nt was a mere act of date.
Lord C.uutibell.-Uow do you show any perusal Skirts
lion hem
Mr. liagains-Thrie bonds were signed on her ha at.
and by then. she undertakes to Cut,
interest; that is milkiest
to eustain actin of debt. ut, before this court will
grant • prohibition, it must se.: clearly that the court below
lute exuded it. jurisdiction. Nothing is shown to have
been dune here +halt is not consistent with justice, as ad-
mieistered at the Lied Mayer. Court. It was alleged, in
mow nit fur the rule, that an application had been made le
that court to stay proceeding., on the arousal that the &-
fend-int, as Queen of Spain, multi not be sued here-bet
no such ground for the application was ever made. The only
✓easons alleutel for staying the proceedings were, first, a
technical error in the plaint; secondly, that the prothad-
there by foretell attachment were iu the nature of an arrest,
and the dole ndaut in thie case wee nut liable to arrest ; and
thirdly, that it did not appear that the Queen of Spain had
tee, nespss d these beetle. Thi rerun., on all thole points,
the court was right to refuse the application. Hut further,
the excess of jurisdiction should appear upon the record,
otherwise this mart will sot take notice of it. The pro-
coastline by Simian attachment has been decided not to he
equivalent to an arrest, hat merely a part of the customs of
the city of London ; •• bay e. l'aupierre', (lb Law Jourual,
270).
Mr. Welsh), followed on the same side' and contended
that 'so privilege would oust the city of London of .te
right, all that was necessary was that the garnishee should
be within the juriedietion and hc a debtor to the defendant,
and that it was not necesory that the can Inaction should
have arisen w,thia the city. °Colittittuua's
latadini,- p. 2.1.).
Mr. Justice Patti-on-Surely the whole foundation of
the promoting. 14 the right 01 the plaintiff to we the ele-
fendaut in the Lord *riot's Court.
Mr. Wrist, contended that that was not so, and cited
" Harrington e. Mealterrie- (.1 Taunton, 2.75), and ° Banks
t. Self,- (ilea in • note to that era-, in both which caws
the preceding* must have failed it that had been an
ri•Mi-
m. Nest, he cooteitilial that the garuishee was tau
te in this application, a. be hail appeared and pleaded in
the court below ; he could only tomplain oldie prometling.
in the toreian attachment, awl heal wo nacre:et in the ques-
tion viliether the original defendant had any defence to the
action ; the only questiun for him was whether he was
debtor to the attendant.
Mr. Justice Erle-lt has been decided that a defendant
may plead to the juriolVtion blow, awl if that is decided
ag-unit him, he may come here her a prohibition.
Mr. Welslty--That is so if he Meade to the jurisdiction
below, hot mot if he pleads anything
Mr. Justice Erie-Sapp... an action in the County
Court for folk which that Court has coo juriolictiou by the
act to entertain-the di hodant does nut object to the
want of jurisdiction, and jadgment he given against bins.
and he then name hen and asks tor a prohobitiou to stay
further proccilleniti ; we riot grant it?
Mr. recently not.
Slr. J redo, Erie 'ono lit cannot confer jurioli, lion.
Sir. Welsh) Nn; but it may estop the eon...atom party
from here ta he learned counsel then
rout, nil. el that the defence that the Queen could not be
sued as Queen %mild, if a do knee in the Lord Mayor's
Court, It a di knee i•CurValWre. alai this court would not
he guilty of an execs. nj jurioliction in protettling, but
winsi.l Is- deriding contrary to law, and this court would
not presume that any noun Would do that-" Morten v.
Beekman (tj Term !Cep., int), "Clark v. Denton " (I B.
and Ad., 92). 'lleac authorities show that this court will
wait and see whether the court below will nut du right
bebire it intent...en.
Mr. horke hollowed on the same bide, and contended that
I.y pleading other matter, and Slut 'pleading to the juriedic-
lion of the court, the right tit apply bir prohibition Was
aw, soil that '• Junesgv. Jame." Law Joural, Q. Ile
2.17 y wes a dinet authority to that etliat. 'lliere the de-
fendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations, and then tame
to this court to ask for u prohibition, MI the ground that the
jua.re m the county court had no jurisdiction in the matter;
but this rourt held that the defehnint had waisnl hie right
to object to the jurisdiction. Anil so in r. laird
Camden Slacketune'a lb-poets, It was derided
that tin. Court %veld not grant prohibition when the party
sobiag it had not raised the objection in the court below.
Ile than emiWnikal that this was nut a ease for prohibition
at all, hut for appeal to the l'ourt of Heating% and from
that to the Coon of Appeal, in 141. Mania's-kotirand.
Mr. Chambers, Q.C., contra, said that this was • case of
ovoid...rattle national importance ; and that he should con•
boil, tint, that proliittition would lie; secondly, that it
might be welted for by the garnishee; and, thirdly, that the
present application was in prover time. Ihe whole peo-
ny .ling of foreign attachment was founded upon the
balm, and any rii.torii to proceed. except upon summoning
the defendant, ...aid be bad ; it was upon the power ul sum-
moning that the it 1.01, depended, unit at Iliere wan no power
01 000000 aning in this Cabe the whole pnweieling must fall to
the ground. Then could • foreign sovereign, when reside nt
abroad, be MiMniolied to the courts ot this country civil 'Or
• foreman Canby ; Anil even if that propositiou could lie
maintained, it would he siecerary to go further, and show
that sack morel, ipzu coold be sinialaloiled tor an act thole ill
the capacity of sovereign. It was inspoolile to maiutain
this Litho pr. pswitoi. and the court below had, therefore.,
exceeded its juriolietion ; and whenever it was clear that
an inferior tribstual had exceeded its jurisdiction. whether
is reria et of the perwin ur of the subjett nutter with whieli
it prole-red hi deal, this cuuraviauhl grant a prohibition. Un
the ...cowl point, he contended that w jealous was this court
upon lb. ostler% that it would grant a prohibition even un
the applicatbon of a stranger, as appeared by " Ede r. Jack-
▪ o.ortescue's 'typo MA), and 2 Imt . I.VI. Then upon
the third point, be should contend that the application was
made iu proper time ; the court below had Rom beyond its
jurisdiction ill iwlnint the writ of attachment, and though it
was sad that the garniehic might plead any special mutter,
On re was no instance upon record of any other plea,
ei..x.eat that he haul uu annoy of the deleudant's in Isis
Lord Campbell -The mat difficulty which prams yea
from your !Loin.; pleaded.
Mr. Chambers-All the cases cited on that point are era
hetwi en oda, et and subject, when: the attendant ci
might be eulaest to the juriolictiou of the wart. Aga
'• Hobert. v. Ilueulty " 3M. and W., 120), shows that the
cunt' wiU grant a pruhibitiva, even after sentence. But M
is UMW,' important to look at this question in a matinee'
point of vow, and to consider whether it is tit that therm
proressling. against a foreign eovereigu should be alined NI
mewed. The learned counsel them referred to WOW pro.
nit-thugs in the French court', iu which this sultrect bad
been argued as an intentational question, and it had heell
&chichi that such proceedings ought not to be allowed;
and aim o Vattel, %oak 2, chap. 3. met. Si, as showiug that
it had always been mongered necessary to prevent such
pnweedinite, fur the peace and safety of nations.
Mr. Peacock, Q.C., followed on the same side, and after
going through the eases cited on the other side, as showing
that the g bee had wale eil his right to object to the
jurieantion, and distinguiehing them, contender' that the
main question here was whether the Lard Mayor's Comet'
bad any jurodection to compel the Queen of Sada in
come into court and answer-to hold this would be
authorise: a court to decide upon the rights of a per left
owed no entwines to the dearnissmt of the eantly in
%hie* mesh court sae, who was not baud to attend Its
eosin* or obey its laws, and that such a doctrine could nut
lose maintained. The effect of these proccediarts, if suffered
to guest would be: that &judgment might be given, that this
was the money or the Queen of flpaan, and the garnishee
might refute to pay it over to her, or to any other person,
until the appeared ha the Lord Mayor's Court, mid put in
*penal bailee the action, either to pay the debt or to render
her: and if oath bail was nos pat in altars year and a day,
this money, belonging to the Spanish anti.., and sent coves
here to pay epecific debts insured by the nation, would
let taken by this plaintiff. Id this was to ha allowed, by the
mane rule in the Bristol court • Spaaisi veal of war,com-
ing within the jarisdietiss et the court, might be aken
and could any more disagrees malt be minociverl The
writ of attachment wee net only for money now in the
hands of the garnishee, bet for any money which might
hereafter come into his heads. The very issuing of the
writ was an offence against the law of nations, and if no-
thing further were dome in it, Ile. Wodaworth might be
inelleted fur what he had dace already.
Mr. Randall said be was on the same side, but would not
address the evert after the lesetkrnesi argenients which
bad been heard.
toed Campbell said the spurt would hear the art case,
before giving judgment
Tim Wine r. Tins Loa, KATO.I AND ALIMIPACIIS or
Loneoe. -IN ran turraa op ens Saigon Da Uaaif v.
Tin donna or
Mr. Bartinsick said ha was isitaschal to show cause
the "as fur the Prlbibities in lhfa gam, which was
wiry daft Oa the lies, sal he wait Imaaaeate wont
of
dwells= Om pawn i halt Issaa already aped.
The was aim* mama the guess of Portugal Ibr
a sus arra Ishmpaggila =am which was tlas
hands of Premiere Pam% a at Liam, as the Sea
that she @bevel was dams dad of that nowt, and was
dm alas paarmam Stiarsalhei el forultia ;
hit Sarah,* bandslit•
ittitt:l"
ge imbed egtheetbetatatitesbohjease . , the
ist die eatatry.
Ireasiseded that, te amnia
Gala maim
ISM war warts
4pa fatalism •SV Min the meld ma
'last iimisler not plod sad that
•

~~