The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1805-11-21 00:00:00

DUEL

A meeting, to adjust an affair of honour, betweea
two Officers of the sth regiment of foot, now In
Canterbury, took place, about eight o'clock, on Sun-
day morning last, in a brick find, at the back of the
Infantry Barracks, in Nnrthgate. The parties were.
Lieutenant-Coloncl D--, and Captain l'-.
The ground (ten paces) having been measured he
toe Seconds. the parties batik their stations, and fired
both at the same moment, wl:en Captain P
received a ball in his right breast, which passed
through his body, and came out at his back. lie
immediately fell, and was conveyed to his apart-
menus in the Barracks; and, as no unfavourable
symptoms have yet appeared, hopes are entertaised
of his recovery. The Colonel and Seconds imme-
diately went of. A trifling argument, respeding
theethcacy of the Volunteer Corps, which arose at the
mess on the preceding evening, and which ended in
high words given and retorted, is assigned as thecause
of this unfortunate event. It is singularly remark-
able as to circumstance and place, that, sincethe year
1696, till die present time, the sth regiment has not
been permanently stationed in Canterbury. On tie
eth of March, in that year, a duel was fought by
two Officers of that regiment, Captain F. Rool.e
and Etiiign A. Btikeridge, in the North 'Clinic
not a huadred rods from the spot where the
one above-mentioned took place. They fought with
. .

swords, and both died in the field. -A
1(o/ie.:rough.
ly cut, i❑ the boundary wall of St. Auaustine's
'blistery, mark, the *yoga, with their Raines aad die

date.

We stated. some weeks ago, that Government et-
pen an account of the surrender of the Cape
Good Hope, to the force under the commatni (7
General BA I ea. A Paper of yesterday gave it a.
original intelligence.
The Siatr, from Newfoundland, is arrive
off Penzance. She sailed, on the 25th ult. wish .•
feet, which is dispersed.
The Yam, Etirabeth,—,q, om Teneriffe, for a
marke:, is captured by a privateer.
Private letters have been reogived from Parisi.
dated 7th instant, which mention. that the death Or
the gallant Captain WILIGIIT did not take plac
till the Ist, though the Paris Papers of the '270.
of last month mentioned it a% having occurred .4
the 27th If this account in the private letters, b.
true, it greatly strengthens the suspicion that 0".
Israve countryman was murdered. On the `2)th.ti:
Paris Papers, trho can inavo notbing Vies!, Irehtabw,
that take place in the Temple, but
„leas, the Ur:eraele
announced Captain Wino UT'S death in the Mcup'it
The Govensment kicw he was alive on that dot
hit be dies three days alestraeds Arc WO not tir.
itstaied in believing he was murdereJ, sorbs
poisoned ? The operation of the poison was pr!i
bably slower than was intended and expelled-1
might have been administered on the tlth. and '
ders sent immediately to the Papers yr anuouirct
death as having taken place on that day.

Fri-
.ll .11
usre

LAW INTELLFGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY. Wsomvsnor,Nov.2o.

km-
'the
rem
by
fired

s• L•

d die

tst el-
ope do
84.1 st
C It as

pith

fur 1

P4e14.1
ur

DOLDIR r. LORD HUNTINGFILLD AND MR.
WA I. MON E.
The Plaintiff in this case had filed a bill, calling
upon the Defendants for an account and discovery
of the dividends on certain sums which he entrusted
them to invest in the English Funds, on the account
of the Governments of the Cantons of Berne and
Zurich, in Switzerland. The Defendants. on a
former day, had been refused permission to demur
to the bill, and afterwards put in an answer, which
the Master reported to he insufficient. The question
now came before the Court, as an exception to
the report ; and the case of the Defendants was
argued by Mr. Hot. ass, Mr. WZSTKOPP, and Mr.
12. orris ens. It had, they said, been admitted by
th., Defendants, that they had received those monies
for the purposes mentioned in the bill, at a time that
Switzerland was divided into a number of inde-
pendent and sovereign cantons, amongst which were
the Governments of Zurich and Berne. In the year
1798, a revolution took place in Switzerland. and
in the years following, the governments of the can-
tons were dissolved, and the whsle consolidated
into one sovereignty, ender the name of the Hel-
vetian Republic. They were not similar to'several
dittinet states uniting themselves into one, with
the consent of their respedlive sovereigns. In
the present cane, the cantons, with all their might,
resisted the revolution which was imposed upon
them by the overwhelming force of a powerful
French army. Now, whatever may be the case
with a change of government, effeeted by general
consent, the Court, they contended, could not ac-
knowledge an authority which hart only been esta-
blished by violence and the sword ; and the more so,
as it was notorious that the Helvetian Republic had
never been to.:ognired by the Government of this
County. Upon these go minds. they argued, that
the present violent and forced Government of Snit-
serland, had no right to claim what was invested for
the benefit of other governments, now dissolved ;
neither cc old this suit lse regularly and equitably
prosecuted, without making His Maj s y's Attor-
ney-General a party to it, as the cause was of
the utmost political importance. Their clients were
not the proper persons to defend this applicar:ou, as
they had no personal interest in the result of it.
They acknowledged that such sums of money were
now invested, in their names, in the funds; and th- re
(mild be no doubt that any order that Court nigh:
make against them, would be a sufficient authority
for any disposition they may make of it ; but, as the
case stood at pusscnt, and the Plaintiff being at the
time efreuenten? this money, in the year 1793, an
alien enemy, resident in Paris, they thought it their
duty to resist such an answer and disclosure as the
rule called upon them to make, and hoped his Lord•
ship would saneli in them in doing so
A variety of cases were then read from the re-
ports, to alsew, that in similar cases, the practice of
the Court was, to admit of an answer denying the
right of the Plaintiff to require particulars.
Mr. ROMILLY. and Mr. Bata, argue 1 foe the
Plaintiffs, that, though the objection respi fling the
revolution in Swiraetla-4 and Coe Hs.vatie Re-
public not having been recognised by i nr Govern-
ment, was a strong one t yet it would be a dan-
gerous thing, and pregnant with ve•y serious poli-
tical ennseqaences, if Lech obj' etions were to be en-
tertained in the Municipal k'ourts (.1 Ingres or this
country. As no authorities trim Putrendorff,
Crotius, or any of the other writers on the law sf
nations, had been adduced on the other side, it was
not unreasonable to infer, that none such could be
quoted ; and, taking it even as a question of policy,
what might be the consequences, if such doetrioes
should he established ? Gentlemen would hardly
contend, that, if a foreign government invested
money in the funds of another, the &Ist was can-
celled by any changes that might take place in the
condition of the foe mer. Let it he supposed, for in-
stance, that a sum of money, on the part of the
English Government, had he n vested in the funds
of Genoa, previously to the Union with Scotland,
they asked, would the Municipal Courts of Genoa
be justified in saying, a A prat change has since
taken place in your government, and, as curs has
not recognised that of Great Britain, that cannot
now be demanded, which was invested in the
name of your former government r' The political
changes which a state may u. dergo, could have no.
thing to do with a claim of this nature. The
agent of the Officers or Pr ineipal Magistrates under
the former constitutions of Berne and Zurich, had
remitted this money for the benefit of these state.;
and, though great and material changes might have
sinct taken place, the Magistrates or Officers now
invested with the same authority, had a right to de-
mand an account and discovery of the money.
After a great variety of cases had also been re-
ferred to, in support of these propositions,
The LORD CiI•HCCLLOR said, that as a great num-
ber of the cases and precedents referred to were
likely to be argued before him again, upon other
eases now depending, it was a satisfaction to him
that he did not think it necessary to have recourse
to many of them in disposing of this case, which was,
us many respeds, of a distinct nature. A:ter then
going through some of the cases, in order to point
out the application of them to the present proceeding,
he said, that, in the decision he should make, tt.e
princiile he should aft upon, would not commit it-
self with the merits of the bill. Whether there
ought to be any other party to the bill, was a ques-
tion which lie meant to leave open, a-d inkjet! to
the discretion of the Attorney-General, whether he
should attend the future progress of the proceedings.
As to the political part of rho consideration, he
should leave it out of the questi n ; lot municipal
courts would always do well to avoid torching en, or
interfering with them, except they happened in their
own country. flee dissolution of the former cantons
of Switzerland, was, certainly, no civil offence to
Englnnde and, as tii the a ordm revolution." be could
give no legal tottsouelion of it. If the Defendants
caold prove that the Plaintiff had no right to relief,
they ought to have demurred to the rule. When
they did apply for leave to demur, they were re-
fused it ; and, as the elle., of the present answer, it
admitted. would he to give them all that they could
have gained by a demurrer, he was of opinion they
must answer the bid. He wished, at the WPC time,
to hare it distinftly understood, that this decision

rests upon potro legal grounds, and without any re•
ference to any of those topics which htd bean intro-
duced into it.
COURT OF RTNG's-RENtH, wserwitorse, Now. 20.