The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-02-14 00:00:00

Devereux, as executor to Mr. Fanning. Mr. Fanning survived
his wife, and as he died without hetes, the Attorney.(kneed has
been made a party, the bill-stating that the Crown is entitled to the
other moiety of the said compeniattles. The compensation awarded
is of 'great amount, and the estate's of considerable value ; but
the principle which the cue involves is much mote extensive than
sets value of the estate. His Honour had carefully read over
all the Conventions and Acts of Parliament upon which
the question turned. The law upon the subject depended on the
4th article of the definitive treaty concluded between England and
France in 1814, and the 19th article of the treaty of 1816. Certain
other conventions lied been entered into with the same view, and a
Commission had been issued under the Great Seal of the United
Kingdom. fly an Act of the 69th George 111, 18th section, it was
provided, if a question should ariee,that any claimant might appeal
from the Commission to the King in Coun:il, under certain murk.
dons, and the Commiesionere. If unable to determine who were the
persons entitled, were empowered to refer the question to the Court
of Chancery. The Ctmimissitners in the case of Fanning decided
that, its he hail sued out letters of naturalization, the claim of his
executor could not come within the construction of the said Act.
From this decision an appeal was made to the K;ttg in Council,
when the award of the Commission was rescinded, upon which the
Commission proceeded to award certain large sums of money to He-
vereux. The present bill was tiled on the 17th of March, 1821.
On opening the cause the Court had held that it bad no jurisdiction.
No power had been given by the Act fill, George 111. His Honour
continued of thesameopinion. Those who have claims upon the French
Govanment have no rights which can be asserted in any Caine. Their
rights depend upon the conventions and Acts of Parliament re.
cited: and if they possess the right of appeal,that right must besought
for in the 15th section of the Act of 59 George 111, by which it ap-
pears that the Legislature intended to give the commissioners full
power to decide, unless they should find so much difficulty as to be
unable to do so. In that cage they were authorised to call in the
assistance of the Court of Chancery. They had not here called in
that assistance, and nothing in this Act could authorise the Court
to interfere, but by the Act of the Commissioners themselves.
There would be another difficulty even if it were not perfectly clear
that the Court had no jurisdiction. No claim had been made by
the plaintiff within the period prescribed, and the Commission cud
no opportunity to determine whether he had such s right or not.
The right of Devereux was not disputed. If they had known any.
thing of this claim. they would no doubt, have called in the assist-
ance of the Court, but not knowing that any such claim might be
established, they could not do so, 'and they did not do so. His
honour said, however, that he could not give costa, because the de-
fendants ought to have demurred ; but the plaintiff must pay the
costs of the Attorney.Oeneral.
Mr. FONBLANQUE asked, if his Honour thought it was a
general rule, that costs should not bit given when a party could
have demurred and did not demur ?
The VICE.CIIAWCET.I.OII said, he did not mean to establish
any such general rule ; but the defendants have in this ease stated
in their bill that there is just ground of resistance, and therefore
it appears that they did nut take the proper means to prevent the
action front coming on.