The Sun.
London, England, 1823-12-22 00:00:00

LAW INTELLTGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, DEC. 20.
DEL PONT V. DE TAITET.
The LOAD CLIANCELLOII, in the course of the two previous
days of hearing, had signified his displeasure at the readiness
of.Pounsel in signing bills of exception on account of imperti-
nence. This was a case of a foreign merchant who remitted
:doubloons to the bankrupt, the value of which he afterwards
claimed of the estate. There were some Spanish letters touch-
ing the4ransaction, which were set forth in the bill, by trans..
lating them into English; and it was alleged that they were
" to the purpose and intent and in the words and figures fol-
lowing." The bill was referred, for impertinence, and the
Master, among other parts, struck out " in the words and
figures following." The plaintiff excepted the 'Master's re-
port before the Vice-Chancellor, who approved of some of the
exceptions, but not of others, which the Master had allowed.
The defendant now appealott to the Lord Chancellor, and the
result of all this was, that the cause had been delayed for
eighteen months, only to argue the propriety of two or three
expressions which might have been left out. As Lord Thur.
low had once said, the forms of the Court were very well cal-
culated to do justice to all parties, if they were not abused and
turned to oppression. That he said in the great cause of the
Earl of Lonsdale v. Blount, in which the late Earl took a fancy
to having an estate for 14,0001. which was well worth 40,0001.,
and had recourse to every shift and stratagem which the forms
of process would admit, in order to compel a specific per-
formance. His Lordship had the honour to be Counsel to Mr.
Blount for several years. Mr. Blount at the end of the time
was surprised to see how little money Counsel took out of the
costs compared with the expences of solicitors, and was anxious
to make him a present over and above his feel', which ended In
a pot of char. His Lordship thought that the present pro.
ceedings, witch had cost between 40/. and 604, might have
been spared, and confirmed the judgment of the Vice-Chan-
cellor.

COURT-or ritNeti, Rue. 20.
THE PERUVIAN LOAN.
atietivit v. Lvrifirrr kern OTHERS.
This action was brought by Mr. Kinder, the contractor for
the Peruvian Loan, against Messrs. Everett, Walker, and Co.,
bankers, to recover two stuns of 5,6661. Ills. 7d., and 70,0004,
for which he had drawn checks on them, and hich they had
refused to'pay.
Mr. Bitovonisr (with Whom were Mr. PAHaE and Mr.
At DXnsosr)
stated the case on behalf of the plaintiff, who
complained thftt the de6ridants, bankers In the city, had un-
justifiably detained a large sum of money paid into their kanda.
Mr. Kinder, a merchant of
,the highest character, had been
the general agent to the P:nuyinn- Government, and that Go-
vernment, wishing to raise a loan of 6,000,000 of dollars, or
1,200,0001 skrlirig, he contracted with their envoys in Lon.
don, Messrs. Paroissien and Gerdes, to raise that sum. In
the year • he requested the defendants, whom he had
previously employed as his bankers, to open a separate ac-
count, headed " Peruvian Loan Accotint,' for the purpose of
keeping diatinct the monies received! and paid in reference to
diet transaction. t..'onsiderable sums of money were paid in,
and some were drawn out on this account; and at the present
time there was remaining a balance of 6,6301. Ills. 7d. in
favour of Mr. Kinder, for which he had drawn the first
check, which the bankers refused to pay, and which Ile
now sought to recover. After some tune he directed them
to open another account, heeded, " State of Peru—Thomas
Kinder, jun. agent," but withoUt clueing the other, or wry-
ing over the balance.; to this account large mums, received as
subseriptinns on the loan, were placed ; and on the other hand,
cheeks of the plaintiff were duly honoured ; and on this account
arose the balance of 70,0004 which also the defendants thought
proper to ivithhold.- As the first instalments on the loan were
received, it became matter of discussion in whet way the funds
thus realized should be placed at the diapoeal of the Porurien
Government ; and it was arranged between the Envoys, .Mr.
Kinder, and the defendants, that a Gentleman named Proctor
should be sent to South America; that lie should there obtuin
money from such persons as might wish to remit cash to Ellg.
land, giving bills `to them drawn on Mr. Kinder ; that he
should pay over the money raised by the bills to the Govern:.
merit; and that the sums in the hands of Messrs. Walker and
COmpany ahoUld be applied in taking up the bills so drawn.—
Mr. Proctor departed on this mission; and, in pursuance of
his authority, brew bills to a great amount on Mr. Kinder,
which were approved by the P'ernvian Government, and were
put in circulation. After all this--after the tremendous liabili.
ty which Mr. Kinder incurred with the concurrence of the
delendants—wonleit be belieVed dint they refused to honour
his checks, on some scruples raised in their minds respecting
the legality of the transaction, and the state of affairs between
Mr. Kinder and the Peruvian authorities' doubts—which
were never suggested, while they continued to receive; but
which, unluckily, arose when they were required to pay !
S--Proceedings were instituted in Chancery, by One Or the
übscribers, to which, he believed, they were no strengere
an injunction was obtained, but afterwards dissolved.; and
they still hesitated to pay, on the oyinions of their legal
Viliertir. Perhaps they thought, that in the multitude of coun-
Sellars there wits safety, and that in the Court of Chancery there
wait comfort (a laugh) ; but that Court no longer laid on them
sty friendlyrestrictione. Would they now, in pursuance of
those doubts from which they were once so free,' contend to-day
that the loan was an illegal transaction ? If so, he was prepa-
red to meet them with the authorities of the most eminent of
writers on the law of nations—of Clrotius and Vattel. These
writers held; that where a petty, opposed to tine old Govern-
mcnt of a State, was sufficiently powerful to keep on foot musicforcers-,..where the contest was' carried by the ordinary Nies
of warfare, and the men captured were treated us prisoner* of
war, not as rebels—there the.act of the insurgents must not be
-considered as rebellion, but as civil warfare; and, in this state
&things, it WAD, lawful for the subjects of a neutral Power to assist either party by a loan. But what was this argument to
the. question between ISIr. Kindler and the bankers, who had,
varied their reasons for declining to pay? At one time they coms
plaitled that the Envoys had misrepresented their conduct ; at
another, even. after air loan wisratified and a profaned made for an amicable arrangenient, they said that they were advised
some parties, whom they.did tun•evettname, had claims nn thl
funds in their hands; but, in truth, they had no good reason to
offer, and the plaintiff, by whom they wereemployed; had a
clear right to the control of the money which was necessary to
his own protection.

It apiCeared inaridence, that on the 17th October, 1822, Mr.
ninder wrote to Evet:el.t, Walker, ;toil Co., who were then his
bankela for gerieialPurxoses, reQuesting them to open n aepa.
rate account headed" Peruvian Loan," to ;quid the intermix.