The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-26 00:00:00

was one arising within the jurisdiction of the Court.
He thought it must be taken that these men falsely
professed themselves to be NI Billault's N gents.
The Lord ChiefJustice—We cannot do that.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—Or, r tther, that for this
purpose they truly professed to be so.
The Lord Chief Justice—That they professed to
be so; for we have the statement of Mr. Sergeant
Glover that he learnt from M. Billault that their
representations were true. M. Billault may be
prepared to contradict it. At present we cannot
try that question. By so doing you are really ask-
ing us to try the case.
Mr. Hodgson said that he was trying to show
that the cause of action did not arise within the
jurisdiction of the Court, and he would call their
attention to another affidavit. If the plaintiff
founded his action on the ratification of the agency
at Paris by M. Billault, there was but a partial
contract in this country, and it was essential to the
maintenance of the action that it arose solely in this

country.
The Lard Chief Justice—The plaintiff does not
rely on the ratification at Paris in that sense. He
says certain persons came over here armed with
authority to make a contract, and they made one
with him, and he refers to what took place in his
personal interview with M. Billault in Paris to
show that they were authorised agents.
Mr. Hodgson said he should ask their lordships
to infer that whatever these persons professed to be,
they in reality were not authorised agents.
The Lord Chief Justice—We cannot make any
difference between an English subject and a French-
man, however high the position of the latter may
be. In this case we have a sergeant-at-law stating
one thing, and a minister of the French Empire
another.
Mr. Hodgson said—Certainly not; but here was
the distinct denial of a gentleman holding the high
position of the Minister of the Interior of France.
The Lord Chief Justice—And we have also the
distinct affirmation, on the other side, of Mr. Ser-
geant Glover.
Mr. Hodgson submitted that the statement of one
was not so distinct and emphatic as the other.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—We must treat M. Bil-
lault as we would treat Lord Palmerston or any
other British subject.
The Lord Chief Justice—You have repeated, I
think, six times in the course of this motiun that M.
Billault is the Minister of the Interior of France,
but I do not know for what purpose.
Mr. Hodgson said he only mentioned it to show
that a gentleman holding that high position was
not likely to deny on oath what was true.
The Lord Chief Justice—And I hope no English
sergeant-at-law would do so. Why assume that
• one side is more likely to do so more than the

othe. ?
Mr. Hodgson said that the persons said to be
agents having acted without authority, the plaintiff
must proceed on the ratification. With regard to
that there might be two answers.
The Lord Chief Justice—But he does not put it
on the ratification.
Mr. Hodgson said he would call their lordships'
attention to an affidavit made by M. Billault, dated
27th November, 1862, which was as follows :
" That I have read the affidavit of the above-
named plaintiff sworn the 24th of July, 1862.
" That I did not employ or authorise any person
in the 3 ears 1856 and 1857, or at eny time to agree
in my behalf as mentioned in the first paragraph of
the plaintiffs said affidavit.
"That I never heard from the plaintiff or any
other person that the said persons referred to in the
first paragraph of the plaintiff's agreement had
made the agreement mentioned in the declaration
and particulars of demand in this action, as
stated in the second paragraph of the plaintiff's
affidavit ; that I have no idea who the said persons
are, and that, if any such alleged agreement had
been mentioned to me I should energetically have
disavowed it.
" That it is possible, that I do not recollect it,
that in 1857, M. Albert Bouard, mentioned in the
third paragraph, may have officiously given to the
plaintiff, as to the gentlemen of other foreign news-
papers, some indications for his newspaper, which
the plaintiff was incessantly and gratuitously plac-
ing at the disposal of the French Government of
which I was a member, but neither I nor the said
Albert Bouard ever heard of any agreement, as al-
leged by the plaintiff.
" That I have no knowledge that any persons
have written or forwarded to the plaintiff numerous
letters and communications for the purpose of car-
rying out the agreement hereinbefore mentioned,
and of aiding and abetting and assisting the ob-
jects and views of me, the said deponent, as stated
in the fourth paragraph of the plaintiff's affidavit,
and I have never authorised or sanctioned the same
being done."
Their lordships would see that M. Billault gave an
emphatic denial to Mr. Glover's statement, and it
was for their lordships to say if this was a cause of
action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court.
The Lord Chief Justice—To have a cause of ac-
tion it must be within the jurisdiction of the Court,
and the parties who were here armed with M. Bil-
ault's authority were within the jurisdiction of the

Court.
Mr. Hodgson again suggested that if there was
any jurisdiction it was within the Court of Paris.
The Lord Chief Justice—No, not ratified. He
recognised them as his agents.
Mr. Hodgson still submitted that it amounted to
a ratification. Suppose they were not agents.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—He has thought proper
to recognise them, and it is an essential part of the
cause of action.
Mr. Justice Mellor—The interview at Paris is
used as an adoption of the original contract in Eng-
land.

The Lord Chief Justice—And then it became a
contract in England, and the cause of action the
fulfilment of the contract.
Mr. Hodgson still urged there was no cause of
action, and after some further remarks
The Lord Chief Justice, without calling on the
other side, said--The rule must be made absolute.
We are really asked by the learned counsel for the
defendant to try this cause, and not to say whether
under the act of parliament a British subject may
proceed against a French subject, where it has been
shown to our satisfaction that the contract was
made in this country, and that the cause of action
arose here. Upon the service of the process of the
Court upon a foreigner residing out of the country
the legislature has thought proper to pass an en-
actment, the propriety or non-propriety of which it
is not for us to question. All that we have to de-
cide is whether, on the affidavits, there was suffi-
cient to show the learned judge who heard the case
at chambers that the cause of action arose in this
country. On the affidavits some technical objec-
tions have been made, but on the whole it appears
to me that he was right in holding that a sufficient
prima facie case had been made to show that
the cause of action arose in this country. The de-
fendant, on being served with the notice, has a
right to come here and show, if he can, that the pro-
ceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court, and
that there is no pretence for saying there is any
cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the
Court, and that the proceedings, being vexatious,
ought to be set aside. If it had appeared on the
affidavits that there was no conflicting testimony
we should have given effect to the defendant's re-
presentations, and we should have considered that
He so acteha d
the first learned judge acted rightly.
on the materials that were before him ; but these
other affidavits have since been produced, stating
that certain persons come to this country and en.•
tered into a contract with the plaintiff in the name
of M. liillault, for certain services to he rendered in
this country by him as the proprietor of certain
portions of the public press ; and he states that
although at first he assumed the fact of their being
M. Billault's agents, that afterwards, in an inter-
view with that gentleman he acknowledged these
parties had been clothedwithauthor
deniesity in this
matter as his agents.it
He, however,;
and no doubt upon the view a jury may
eventually,
take
Glover
ou
lnao
vl theyer, t
hi ciseu
decisionestin o
righto that
of f facttth
he e
csea
sbetweenepwarit the
parties
edsepwe
enrd partiest the
e
agents of M. Billault, and that he afterwards ad-
mitted and acknowledged that they were his agents,