The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-28 00:00:00

c4-.'- "

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
Thomas Ramsay, merchant, Glasgow, May 3 adt 124, at
one, at the chambers of Messrs. Macdowall and h tarrai,
Glasgow.
James Syme, lime burner, Linlithgow, May 1 and 22, 5t
two, at the Star and Garter Inn, Linlithgow.
Duncan MacMillan and Company, ship chandlers, Glal wow,
April 30 and May 21, at twelve, at the counting-houve of
Messrs. Manford and Wink, Glasgow.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, April 27.
MINDEN V. THE DUKE OF BRUNSWICK.
muTTrthereisatcitisotehnecwaramespeliebtifo the Court upon a special de-
murrer
Luneburg,
etnedeebrMui
er uokn, dt
oe n brought by the plaintiff, Mr
against his Serene highness, ess,s4Carhalres.
rAugustuseco ve r William Duke of runswich and
payment of an annuity of 200 L,
conditions ; amon,,steauonrtdher
which the defendant had se
acknowledge
her
that by dikeeedpraincetiri Lain
i l it to be in
should be content therewith,
discharge of all claims which she m"
fendant ; that she should not write tot have
odneftehnedatt, concerning past transactions between the parties
and on-:
several other conditions, the breach of which was' to ren-
der the deed void. The declaration fully set out the deed
and alleged a breach.
The defendant, in person, pleaded a plea to the ju-
risdiction of the Court, alleging, that at the time of the
making of the said deed he was a Sovereign Prince—to
wit; the reigning Duke of the Duchy Of Brunswick
and Luneburg ; and that the said deed was made by
him in his dominions; and that from the time of making
the said deed he had been, and still was, justly entitled
ti ail the rights, prerogatives, and privileges apper-
taining to him as the Duke of Brunswick and Lune-
burg, &c., and prayed judgment if the Court here
ought to take cognizance of this action. The
replication alleged that the Court ought not to be barred
from taking cognizance of the said action, because
the contract was not made with the defendant in respect
of any matter appertaining to the state and Govern-
ment, or policy of the said duchy of Brunswick and
Luneburg, but that the said debt was a private debt
owing from the defendant, in his private capacity,to the
plaintiff; that after the making of the said deed, and be-
fore the accruing of the said debt, the defendant quitted
the said duchy, and was domiciled within the jurisdic-
tion of this Court, not as a Sovereign Prince, but as a pri-
vate subject of, and owing obedience to, her Majesty tha
Queen. To this replication the defendant demurred,
and several points for argument were raised by the de-
murrer.
Mr. Lusa, in support of the demurrer, said the de-
fendant was a Sovereign Prince, and as such be was
not liable to be sued in a court in this country for any
act done by him while a Sovereign Prince, and acting as
a Sovereign. The defendant was the'Duke of Brunswick
and Luneurg, and was no more liable to be sued in
an English court than the Emperor of Russia or the
King- of Prussia. The defendant alleged that he was
still entitled to all the rights, privileges, and preroga-
tives of the Duke of Brunswick; that part of
the plea was not traversed by the replication—
it was admitted. There was no averment that he
had abandoned his country, there was nothing
inconsistent with his averment that he was
still a Sovereign Prince. The question then was, could
a Sovereign Prince be seed in the courts of this his
country? Ile contended that he could not. There were
not many authorities on this subject, and the chief was
the case of the "Duke of Brunswick v. the King of
Hanover" (6 Be-vans' R. p. 9), in which a bill in Chan-
cery had been filed to set aside an act of state done by
the King of Hanover; and there was a general demurrer
for want of equity, and it was held by Lord Langdale,
the Master of the Rolls, that the Court had no power -
to relieve. The Master of the Rolls, in giving his judg-
ment, entered fully into the discussion of the question,
and he decided that he could not interfere in such a case.
The immunities of Sovereign Princes were grounded on
the same reasons as the immunities granted to ambas-
sadors. He submitted that the ruling by the Master of
the Rolls was correct, and should be followed in this
case. It was admitted on the record that the act was
done while the defendant was a Sovereign, and it ought
to be presumed that it was done by him in his capacity
of Sovereign. A Sovereign Prince domiciled in this
country was prima facie not liable to be sued in the
English courts,

Mr. Justice PATTEsox—Primi facie, a Sovereign
Prince is not liable to be sued even in his own dominions.
Mr. LIISH—The plaintiff ought to show that he was
so liable, for if he was not liable to be sued in his own
country he could not be in this. It was for the plaintiff
to show that the defendant had ceased to be a Sovereign
Prince, and had become a subject of her Majesty. She
had failed to do so. The Duke of Brunswick's stay in
this country was only temporary, and he had not aban-
doned his rights as a Sovereign Prince. On these
grounds he submitted that the demurrer would be
sustained.
Mr. BOVILL, in support of the replication. The
pleadings had been framed in accordance with the de-
cision of the Master of the Rolls, and he was surprised
that his Learned Friend relied upon that decision for his
defence. His Learned Friend did not deny that the •
defendant would be liable for what took place in this
country. The Duke of Brunswick was now domiciled
in this country, and was responsible for acts done in bis
private capacity, when in his own country. In the case
of the." Duke of Brunswick v. the King of Hanover," it
was considered that the acts done were acts of state; but
that was avoided in this case, by replying that the debt
was a private debt, owing by the defendant in his private
and personal capacity to the plain:ill'. The ground of
the decision of the Mister of the Rolls was, that Minis-
ters were responsible for the acts of their S.,vereigns.
The decision in the case f the King of Hanover was,
that if there was a contract nut made by. him in titat. 7
Character, but as a private- individual;'-!:e was liable to
be sued here. He relied upon that authority. The
plea was one in abatement, and that no court in this
country had any jursd'ction. lie con•ended that the
plea was ninscoiweiveti; it should have been in bar, and
not in abatement. A plea in abatement, which did not
give a better writ. was bad.

Mr. Justice WicirrNAN—This is a pica to the juris-
diction, and it concludes as such.
Mr. BoviLL—As the defendant relikd on a perscnal
privilege be mnq t•how that he was a Sovereign Prince.
The plea alleged, that at the time of the making of the
contract the defendant was a Sovereign Prince, but be
did not allege that he was still a Sovereign Prince—he
only alleged that he was entitled to all the rights, &c.,
without showing how he was entitled. The defendant
did not aver, that by the law of Brunswick he was not
liable on this deed, and if he was liable in Brunswick he
was liable in England.
Mr. Lusu, in reply, said, that tilt plea was a plea to
the jurisdiction. The reason why parties were liable
here fur contracts made abroad was because they were liable
there, and their liability went with them wherever they
went. It that contract could not be enforced in Bruns-
wick, neither could it be enforced in England. If it had
been an ordinary person who had made a contract in
Brunswick, the plea would have been bad, but that was
a plea of privilege. An ordinary individual would be
bound to submit to the judgment of that Court, but a
Sovereign was not bound.
The COURT took time to consider their decision.

JUDGES' CHAMBERS, April 27.
(Before Mr. Justice MAPLE.)
POWELL V. BRADBURY AND EVANS.

Mr. HunsoN, the plaintiff's solicitor, applied for an
order to inspect a document, and also for a copy to be
supplied. The plaintiff was a sub-editor of a paper be-
longing to the defendants, called the Daily INews, and
had brought an action to recover damages for the Lreach
of an agreement for two years, which had been mutually
entered into. The plaintiff having received from
the Bristol correspondent of the Daily Ncws a re-
port of a case in the District Court of Bankruptcy of that
place, in the course of his ordinary duty had revised and
abridged it for insertion. This insertion formed the pre-
text for the plaintiff's dismissal, the defendant! pleading
in reply to the action that the abridged report so inserted
was an unfair, partial, garbled, and improper report.
The plaintiff and his solicitor had made a joint affidavit,
swearing that an inspection of the original copy was
material to the case.
The defendants' solicitor contended, that in all cases
where inspection and copies bad been granted the
plaintiffs had been a party to the document, which was
not so in the present ease.

Mr. HUDSON relied upon the case of " Blogg v. Kent,'
(6 Bing. 664), where a party being trustee, or in the cha-
racter of trustee, was compelled to grant inspection of
the document; and he submitted that the defendants in
this case were quasi trustees, as newspapers were com-
pelled by Act of Parliament to keep the originals of
matter inserted for twelve months, for the benefit of the
public, in case proceedings should be taken in the mean-
time.

Mr. Justice MAULE said he saw no reason for the ap-
plication, and should not make the order.

Mr. HUDSON hoped his Lordship would, if he had
any doubt, allow an application to the Cann.
Mr. Justice MAULE said he could not prevent the
parties from applying to the Court, but he had no doubt
there was no ground for the application.

Bell's Life in London, of May 2,"wi1l have the
fullest and most correct particulars of Chester Muses. " Bell's
Life" will contain, on Sunday, May 9, a perfect chart of the
different race courses on Newmarket-heath, showing dis-
tinctly the positions and lengths ol‘fietahchco,
mthperirehreisnessha.nd fat:::
surveyed with great care by Mr.aJn.d F.
sCilta
willrke , rises
:seeovreuxrmcpea.
expla-
nations,
gde;;ecommend those who desire
liileaswlaoiliitgobfeseunchwaangtiuni
pence enclosed to
te onkoaentpt kolsnnstis'e
possess
continual reference,it toorder we* ex
t‘sr•ao
papers.would
Mr. Clement, jun., No. 170, Strand, will insure a coßy of
of post to any part of Eng-
ixo
Bclrs Life at any time by return
land, Scotland:;leotrtitlly,i,lalnv
idt.ll the french
f sewnilsatreke eptl,e
Chases,Epsom,
wereand
Bath Spring
Is Life ii'l.. London,
given in Bell
sevTenlifEoliio,Rct())lruomsntsi., of April 18, to the extent of
TAX o
It is a provision in the propoelllßAlActGfEosr
tilieN
LAND.—
tiiin of births and marriages, r eBgCi s°t. LI
Aes, that within ten days after mar-
riage, Loth the contract'
of ~,.ir.,
~„0 lees,
nig Parties shalt, tinder the penalty
iii,11:4.,
w.iilkituv,u.ool
witnesses,
repair to a public office, and there,
"sign an entry of such marriage
in the register Look."lesse's,
For this, the pair, however poor, must
pay a fee of five shillings; it after ten days--a penalty by
tbe way, on marriage jaunts—a fee of ten shilliugs. But if
the young people, instead of marching with two witnesses to
the register office—A gazing stock to the populace—should
prefer goinq through this absurd ceremonial at their own
houses, which every modest pair would certainly do, they
must pay a fine of one guinea; and if after the ten days, no
less than two guineas! besides travelling expenses to the re-
gistrar!! And, worse than all, if the unlucky pair should
happen to take a rather extensive tour after marriage, and
remain absent for upwards of two months, they will find on
their return that they have incurred a penalty of no lest; -
than fifty pounds! and in default of payment shall sutler im-
prisonment for one month. What a horrid termination to
the honeymoon.—. Ross-shire Advertiser.
Dispatches from the Governor of New Zealand and
the Cape of
Colonial office.
Good Hope were received yesterday, at .the