The Sun.
London, England, 1847-01-25 00:00:00

PRIVILEGES OF FOREIGN AM

BASSADORS AND ENVOYS.
LORD MAYOR'S COURT, Guildhall, Jan. 23.
(Before the Hon. C. E. LAW, Recorder.)
MURPHY (EXECUTRIX) AGAINST DON JOSE THOMAS

MURPHY, MEXICAN ENVOY.
The consideration of this important case, which, so far
as relates to the privileges granted by the statute of the
7th of Anne, cap. 12, to ambassadors, envoys, and ac-
credited representatives of foreign courts, their domes-
tics and servants, in this country, was, during the sitting
of the Court, again brought before the Recorder, but with
the exception of the question of privilege the particular
facts of the case present no feature of public interest.
It appears that on the sth December last the plaintiff
issued a plaint, and obtained the customary attachment
out of this Court, which possesses the peculiar privilege
in conjunction with the city of York, of attaching
money, goods, or chattels belonging to a debtor,
in the hands or possession of a third party. The
amount attached was 3,800 L, which was in the
hands of Messrs. Schneider and Co., merchants, in
the City, and on the 16th of December Mr. Locke moved
for and obtained a rule nisi to dissolve the attachment
under the provisions of the statute before referred
to, viz., the 7th Anne, cap. 12, which not only protects
the liberty of the person and chattels of the representa-
tive in this country of any foreign Power, but renders
the parties issuing or causing to be issued any writ or
proceeding against any such representative liable to
punishment, according to the discretion of the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Keeper, or any of the Judges of the
Court of Queen's Bench, on representation to them of
any such infringement of the Act, which Act is a decla-
ratory one, and passed in consequence of the Russian
Ambassador having been seized, arrested, and forcibly
taken from his carriage for debt a short time previous,
and this country being at peace with Russia it was con-
sidered to be against the law of nations.
Mr. RYLAND, in showing cause, contended that the
attachment ought to remain, inasmuch that the de-
fendant was not de facto at the time of the issuing of the
attachment the accredited representative of the Govern-
meni of Mexico, he having been recalled on the 29th of
September, although his successor, General Don Jose
Mendoza did not arrive until the 20th of December.
The LEARNED RECORDER held that the defendant
was entitled to his privileges up to the 20th of December,
and dissolved the attachment.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

RE3IARICABLI3 CASE OF ALLEGED FRAUD.—A tall thin
man, of military appearance, whose name appeared in the
charge list as James Edward Carnegie, was put to the bar,
charged with being what is called by the general body of
tradesmen a common swindler.
Mr. Wilkins (a solicitor) appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr. Morgan, from Mr. Humphrey's offices, attended for the
defence. The prisoner, who was introduced to the justice
room as Captain Carnegie, was stated to have been connected,
as a provisional committee-man, with several of the evanes-
cent railway companies.
Mr. Andrew Smith, of Wellington-place, Commercial-
road East, engineer, said, " In the early part of 1845, the
prisoner :called on me at my office in White Lion-court,
Cornhill, and having represented himself to me as Captain
Carnegie of the Royal Engineers, and the cousin of the Hon.
Captain Carnegie of the Royal Navy, and of the Hon- Fox
Mauls, borrowed of
,me the sum of 51. He said that he
would introduce me to the two gentlemen above-named, and
I lent him the money, which he promised to return in a few
days and which he borrowed upon the pretence that he had
left his purse at home, in consequence of his alleged relationship
to those distinguished individuals. I afterwards learned
that there was no connexion at all between him and them.
I met him first in a public coffee-room, and he introduced to
me a lady as his wife, whom he described as the Countess de
Beaumont, and related to the blood-royal of Spain.
Mr. Morgan—You do not speak of your first meeting?
Mr. Smith—No; I had met him previously. He borrowed
three sovereigns of me on the 30th of November, 1844, at
a public dinner. He told me it was the amount of the con-
tribution he intended to give to the charity; but I do not
believe that he paid anything of the kind.—(A laugh.) He
told me that he had considerable property in Spain and
Portugal, and the East Indies, and he introduced me to
several respectable persons, who, it appears, became acciden-
tally acquainted with him as I did, for they were all imposed
upon by him.
Mr. Morgan—Of that you know nothing.
Alderman Gs—He seems to know something about it;
we shall see by and by.
Mr. Andrew Smith—l accompanied him to the Society of
Arts, as he wished to go there to see the apparatus of Pil-
brow's Patent Atmospheric Railroad, and I was a member
of the society.
Cross-examined by Mr. Morgan—l was first introduced to
him in November, 1844. I dined with him on St. Andrew's
Day in that year. I never dined with him before nor since.
I knew him then as Captain James Edward Carnegie, of the
Royal Engineers. He and his lady, whom he introduced t•
me as the Countess de Beaumont, called on me at my office
in the early part of 1845, and she was present when I lent
him the 5/.. I put the money into his hand, not into his
wife's, and I let him have it because he said he was Captain
Carnegie of the Royal Engineers, and the cousin of Captain
Carnegie of the Royal Navy, and of the Hon. Fox Maule.
He told me he had forgotten his purse.—(Laughter.)
Alderman Glens—ls there any Captain Carnegie in the
Royal Engineers? Mr. Smith—so.
Mr. Morgan—Why, I am given to understand that Mr.
Smith and the prisoner have been long on iatimate terms,
dining with and making presents to each other.
Mr. Smith denied that such was the case. lie had never
dined with the prisoner but once, but he admitted that he
was desirous of an introduction to the prisoner's cousins:
Mr. Henry Dircks, of No. 7, Nicholas-lane, City, engineer
and agent, said—ln September or October, 1844, the prisoner
slid he had an invention in liqueurs, and that his name was
James Beaumont. I introduced him to Mr. M'Bride, of
Watling-street, wine merchant, by that name,
him and I have
written notes to him as James Beaumont, and addressed
by the same name.
Mr. C. W. M'Bride, wine merchant, of Watling-street,
said, in consequence of a communication which I received
from Mr. Dircks, I went to his office and saw the prisoner,
and afterwards he called at my office, and made an appoint-
ment 2
to meet me at his house, No. 7 Duke-street, Man-
chester-square, to see some liqueurs; and he then introduced
me to an old gentleman whom he called Colonel:Count De
Gargano—(Laughter)—and a lady, whom lie called the
Countess De Beaumont, the daughter of the Duke De Puma.
—(Laughter.) I afterwards went to him at No. 15, Somer-
set-street, Portman-square. I had no further dealings with
him, but I got liqueurs from him, which balanced the ac-
count. I declined having anything further to do with him
when I ascertained what sort of a person he was.
Mr H. Hoche—The prisoner borrowed money from, me in
1844. He came and introduced the name of Ir. Smith as
having recommended him, and I lent him 301., for which he
gave me a bill, which he accepted. It was never paid.
Alderman GIBBS—Why did you lend him the 30/ ? Mr.
Hoche—Because he mentioned the name of Mr. Smith to me,
and I therefore considered him respectable.

Alderman Gums—Did the prisoner say who he was at the
time P—Mr• Hoche—l knew him as Captain Carnegie. He
said his lady was outside, and I told him to bring her in,
and he introduced her to me as the Countess de Beaumont
D'Ossuna (a Spanish title).
Mr. Smith—l did not introduce the prisoner to Mr. Hoche,
but he saw me write to Mr. Hoche, and the next thing I
heard was that he had called on Mr. Hoche.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Hoche—The prisoner, when he called upon me, said
he had heard his friend Mr. Smith speak of me. He did not
ask me for the money at first.
Mr. Smith—l said to Mr. Hoche, " I have not introduced
Captain Carnigie to you. Do not trust him on my account ;
but I understand from him that he is first cousin to the Hon,
Captain Carnegie, of the Royal Navy, and to Mr. Fox

The policeman, who apprehended the prisoner, said he had
seen the Hon. Captain Carnegie upon the subject, and that
gentleman denied relationship to the prisoner, and declared
that he would most readily attend upon the trial, if any
should take place, and give evidence to that effect.
Mr. Morgan submitted that there was not a tittle of evi-
dence to justify the magistrate in holding the prisoner.
Alderman GIBBS—I shall certainly hold him. Let the
witnesses be brought up to prove what has been stated at the
next examination. Remanded.
GUILDHALL.

Elizabeth Baker was finally examined before Mr. Alder-
man Johnson, charged with being concerned with others in
obtaining goods fraudulently from tradesmen. She was re-
manded from time to time, in the hope that some of her
confederates would be traced, and the property recovered.
This not having been done, the magistrate now determined
to send her to Newgate. She had been previously com-
mitted on two charges of stealing, and the evidence in a
charge of conspiracy with Gerhard and others, to defraud
Mr. Burbridge, a hatter, in the Southwark-bridge-road, of
401. worth of hats, was now taken. The hats were supplied
to Gerhard, who commenced business as an outfitter at
Kennington.
➢lr. Lewis, the solicitor for the prosecution, examined the
witnesses, but no additional facts transpired.
The prisoner, who was undefended on this occasion, was
committed in default of sureties in this case.

THE CONTEST BETWEEN THE
COURTS OF ALDERMEN AND COMMON
COUNCIL.

Saturday, the committee of the whole court appointed
at the last Court of Aldermen, for the purpose of taking
into consideration the grand matter in dispute between
the two courts assembled in the Guildhall; the Right
Honourable the Lord Mayor in the chair.
Deputy PEACOCK rose the moment the Lord Mayor
took the chair, and congratulated his Lordship upon the
excellent temper and judgment exhibited by him in
meeting the Common Council in so friendly a disposi-
tion. Every one, he stated, must have been delighted
with the unanimity which existed on the subject of the
appointment of the committee, for that unanimity com-
prehended the belief in the necessity of the reform which
must take place in the Court of Aldermen. Ife and
several other members with whom he was in communi-
cation, entertained the firm conviction that there were
three points which must be carried before it could be said
that the court was reformed. The Aldermen must allow
the Common Councilmen to make such references as the
latter should consider to be expedient for their own govern-
ment. The Aldermen must not meddle with the city
cash, except jointly with the Common Council: and the
Aldermen must be subject to periodical election. These
three great principles must be carried during the present
mayorality.—(Hear, hear.)

After some discussion as to the propriety of opening
the doors to the public during the deliberations of the
committee, which terminated in permission for strangers
to be present. Mr. John Wood continued the protest
which he had made in the court against the removal of
the notice from the paper of business of the third read-
ing of the Qualification Bill.

Mr. T. H. HALL suggested the propriety of at once
proceeding to the consideration of amending the minutes
of the court at which the Lord Mayor refused to put, the
question. It was evident that a serious, misrepresenta-
tion had been made in entering these minutes; he ad-
mitted that the error had not originated in the intention
of the officer who had made it, but until the corrections
were effected no good could be accomplished. lie sub-
mitted a motion recommending to the Court of Common
Council to amend the minutes read at the last court.
Several members objected to the course just proposed,
and were strongly in favour of referring the whole
matter connected with the subject to a sub committee.
It was, they said the opinion of some that the minutes
were literally, though not in spirit, correct; and of
others that there were several inaccuracies in the record.
However, there appeared to be no difference at all on
the great question as to the right of the Lord Mayor to
refuse to put the question of the third reading of the
Qualification Bill. The whole subject, they thought,
could be much more profitably discussed by the sub-
committee. As unanimity was considered to be indis-
pensable in the case, the members, after some observa-
tions, agreed to the proposition that a sub-committee be
appointed to consider the reference from the Common
Council of the 21st of January, 1847, with full power
to proceed therein, and to report thereon from time to
time to the committee. The sub-committee, consisting
of s proportionate number of aldermen and common
councilmen, was then appointed, and the commits ee ad-
journed.