The Sun.
London, England, 1819-07-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COCKY OF' CHANCERY, JULY 15.

DE TASTET V. LOPEZ.

This case satire onus an appeal from the Vice-
Chaucelh,r• under the followiog circumstances:
Sit A. l'ic.GoTT and Mr. 117T1-11.ItELL stated,
thi' this was a motion- for the Court to reverse an
(neer male by the 'Vice-Chancellor on the 30th
of Joffe last, relative to the staving of a. trial
which was to come on hefvie the Common Pleas
at ;ha loesene London Sittings. They were de-
sirons that this rn oiou ,hoidd be heard, as it was
partitolafly imp-irrant relative to the jurisdiction
of the Court, and peculiarly so, its the law of this
country allowed no man to have an 'order issued
aLz,inst him without his bente, heard, • and were
such a system of applications for new trials being
postponed, allowed to be inttorloced into 'this
Court , it would create the greatest pos.sible
and he a fruitful source of endless vexation. Mr. •
Lopez was an eminent merchant itt Sr. Peters-
burgh,, and, by favour of the Emperor of Rossia,
he was net milted to send a mercantile vessel to
the Brazils.. The vessel accordingly,sailed to Rio
Janeiro, where having disposed of her cargo, she
took in another, aud sailed on her return to
Russia. Unhappily, however, by stress of wea-
ther and other nautical causes, she was obliged to
go into F. 11110116, on which she was seized by
Mr. De Tasret, a merchant, aged 82 years, who
sold alkthe cargo. Vt'hether heihad.or bed not a
lien on that cargo, was a question of no import-
ance in the present instance, as no debt, whatever
could justify him in acting in an'illegal tnatMer.—
Ao action was commenced in.Jattie 181.6 Aud such
was the dslavof "be' outer side, that a Bill, was
not filed in tnisrCourt till June 1818. a period of
two ye4rs; That hill Was extrem•ty volorninous,
and bis Lordship .no doubt, find. that
ctil
they aimed at 'by filing it, was to maintain tliBt.tbe
plaintiff, Mr .Lotrez, had two itll t iers, and thus
„
that he might be niiiisu tteu. The' aclion, how-
ever, proceeded in the 'Court of Commoi,
where the Jury granted a verdict of 37,0001.
Large as that sum might
.appear, his
Loldship'need not be tol:I that -it not more
ihtm one•third of What the iilairitiff would have 'I
received, had his careen been allowed to proceed to
St. Petersburgh. - An amended hill 'Was atter-
wards filed in this Court for discriverf;r, aid soap-
plh at ion Was made to the Court idcommon Pleas
for a new trial,' Yvtlich' Was granted on condition
of proper scenrry.l.rillg given for the 37,0001, and
a Mo.ion was also granted for permitting a COM -
MISSIOO to,go Rostia to examine Francisco Lopez,
sou of the plaintiff at law,. The Cotuntissiort wunz
to St l'etersburgh, where it ‘ent on very slowly,
every hoped:merit being thrown in the way, as
thongh it issued on tile I th Jaonary, it was ad-
jouroed.from time. to time out the most friNoloos
ofetexrs, aid arrived in England on'the'2oll) of
Jove. On the last day of that month, tipplication
was ouletOthe Vice-Chancellor,.to stay the new
On Wliat grounds satell an application could
he supported, he knew nor, the order for. the ori-
ginal.trial not having been issued by this Ctout.
On ti;e same day a motion was made in the Court
of Common- Pleas, to suppress the' dep;,sitions
which had been taken before the Cormnission at
St. Petershorgh. That motion was, however, re-
jected most propetly by the- Learned Judges of
that Court, who at once saw its design, 'anti re-
fused. it without hesitahini. An affidavit was
drawl) up, flud.s,wion on-the 29th of June, and
fiktl on the 30th, in the Vice•Chanctdfor% Court',
thes vets day for which the moti in was fixed.
That afli la'vit contained facts, to which, of c,.mae,
the tether site could not reply by ailid tci ,
but which thry'llelared in Court they were com-
pletely-qualified to rebut. The affi.:As it was, hot' -
ever, read, quo the thotiott granted, if 'tow came
before his Lotdship by loaral, and whatever
might have been the opinion drliv red elsewhere,
there could be no doubt of its being refused here,
first, as the Court bad Hoiloisdietioo at all in the
case, the order for the original trial being mi,ide
a L,urt of Law, and secondly, hecao,,e aoph-
cationitself was intended to make this Colitt art
endless and unnecessary cause of delay its the ad-
ministration of the Courts of Law,
• ,The LORD CHANCFL.LOK declared he was at a
loss to see wily an affidavit. filed under such sirs
emustances,.could be read in any blanch of the'
Court. It was morally impossible to go on with
business if an affidavit filed in that ,s ay was to be
lead in another place and nut read here, but while-
he tat in the Court it:eliimtld not be read so. It
was also unpleasant that .a general and invariable
rule of practiceorhould inn operate- in both places,
for by such a way of going on, it would he itn-
pOssible to do justice to the snito:s of the Court.
lie most state further, that it would he difficult
indeed to convince hith that the motion !Aiwa('
have been granted; unless there were other ch..
ciiinstances to found it on than the mere reading
of an affidavit, while Counsel were denied the
right ut answering that affidavit. lf, indeed, any.
Gentleman at the-Bar stated in .his place what the
contents of the affidavit would be, and if, after
due deliberation, the Court were satisfied that
such affidavit Isoutd not repel the facts of the •
other side, then the expence
,replying by new
afthlavits might be saved. But when Counsel
.!istinctly and' pointedly declared their heiog able
to give a satisfactory answer, time should be given
them for doing so. Whatever others might do,
he was determined, while he had the honour of
sittlug there, to rohninis:er justice between par-
ties
by the only effectual way in which it-could be
administered, which was by hearing both sides,
and eVery point Whi.elt could be urged.
Mr. lIAPT, on the other side, contended that he
did not expect to have seen the merits of this case
gone so fully into, the pure question before the
Court being simply the ground which the order
f:tl been made in the other Court. The Bill
stated, that the plain De Tastet, had, a lieu
on the outgoing and. incomipg cargo, and the
raflid,viifirer! before the Vice Chancellor. was for
ire express joirpose of 'preventing the trial front
ptoeceding till there was the fullest access to all
:he-books; letter-6, papers, &c. whieb could pos-
4ibly throw any light on the transactions which
!,ad *taken pface between the parties• To grant
each intoi illation was the design of the 'oral r tirade
by hii Honour, though it bad not been complied]

with to the full.- It was not suffiCient to- have
obtained these books, &.: as pr, per time should
also he allowed for examining them An affidivat
made, stated, that in the book there wer,: o!,ly
six pages which had any referenceto:he case ; 4
subsequent affidavit stated there were eight_more,
and Pei haps, on a more careful examination, more
might s' al he foond., The other ell. tail .strongly
complained of delay, but the blame was as much,
if not more, on their side es on his: Why had
they instituted an action in 1816, and not brought
it to trial till 1818 ? Surely this was as much de7.
lay on the one hand as :he (Ow. The Learned
Counsel then, at great length, contended for the
propri:'ty' of the order, and the difficulty tinder
xvhith Mr. De Tastet would naturally labour were
he to go to.trial without being in Lull possession
of every necessary fact. That the other side.had
other documents could not be doubted, and.their
reason for delaying them was, that they
.related
to other accounts than the present ; yet tie 'Must
own this was no reason for keeping them back,
but, on the contrary, every light should be thrown
on the subject. • As to the imputations cast on
his client, he should treat them %Via: silence, as
not at di-hearing on the case. .
Mr. PFRYS lollp,wed on the same side. •
Mr. XVETEASHULL replied,- and contended that
every document had been furnished to•the other
side, and that ~very thing had been sliewu them
frDm. the books which had the slightest relation
to the transactions between the two parties. Affi
davits to that effect were filed since the motion
made before the Vice Chancellor. The very next
dayafter the order made by the Vice Chaneellor,
notice was served on the other side, that_ they
must prepare for trial notwithstanding that order,
411 woiddcoMe before the Lord PIA:1.
.The question alien on other property
could 'not he at ail conceived to haveany.reference
to an ae!inti. for damages here incurred by detain-
ine. '[bat the action had been raised in
1816, and not-tried till 1815, was urged as an ar-
giiii?eilt of'delay on the pert of his client, but the
witnesses were hr (I'oo from the -Brazils,, &c.
which occupied much time, and could not be
avoided...

A.Oe LORD CHANCELLOR said, he should read
all the alli:tas, and hive jiidgment on corning
into Conti. 107morrow,triorriing. He sLould fake
care
,to inforyn himself hoWt long the Chtet.Justice
would hold his present SiCtings in London; as he
did not know whether in that Court the .Judge
would be obliged to go sooner or later to the
Assiz.s.
On the motion of Sir A. PIGGOTT on behalf of
;he Soitof in the Court, it was ()Merril that the
books of the Accountant-General should be shut
afterrthe 21st of August next, .

COURT OF Klisiq'S BENCH, JULY
Sittingi riper Trinity Trim before the Lord Chit! Justice
and Common Juries.

' PERJURY.

THE KlvG V.•UEORGE TRENHOLM SCURRAH.

The d,'iandant was. criminally indicted tor ft 1
toilful .and corrupt perjury, in an inform lion
lodged by Eliot before the Commissioners of Cos-
toms in the year 1817, fidsely charging a r,spect-
able Merchant of London; Mr.-James Lslog, of
Butcher-ro;'., East Smithfield, with having nor-
chased from hint. a large quantity of contraband
foreign ,goods, in the months of Jlone and July
1515,_ arid ch-ging a Mr. Whalley, a respectable
tradesman of llonccster, With having delivered to
him the said t nntrahand goods for sale Ho com-
mission, upon false charge, his r.
toroey-General had filed an information against
the said parties in the Court of Exchequer, nod a
sty) it of capita issued in eonsqa6mr, upon wlAch
)11) we:a arrested to answer for penalties locos--
red to the amount of 7,5361. Mit strong circum-
stances being
shewn to the Commissioners. to
proee.tili *minimal ion were false, the pkirtie, ere
ri lea d, and phi,, prosecution instituted at the
nesit a of t),t. B.htd.of Customs.
The ease t ti,e proseeotion was opened by
Mr. CAi4rEP.LL, and the cheurnstances stated by
Gnit'srl-.Y The tarta,lB pi ()veil in evidence,
were short I y as 10110.%
I dvittidalii. feAsible representation,
meats to tod;iee ,\lr. Laing to sell him a
1,0: e gokkolity cif hemi, ~11 cr, tilt; but not having
fulfilled his engdgement by,paym,nit, and some
other dicamstanees having been di,eovered,
show Mr. Laing the ontairness of the transaation,
he threatened to indict the defendant fur swind-
liog ; but he did not put this threat into exeel-
preferring the more lenient process of ar..."
resting him for deist. The dc;'endaut. after <lons e
time, endeavoured to obtain the benefit of the Itt-
tinlv'ent Debtors' Act ; but was oppOsed by Mr.
Lain, and remanded to the Fleet Prison. There he
met s'itb a roan named Wickham, who Was con-
fitted at the suit of the other person, Mr. Whal-
ley; and here it would seen the plan was con-
certed between those parties to lodge the-infor-
mation. A letter was written by the defendant,
a revenue-officer, named James Steele, in Aegust,
1817, desiring him to come to the Fleet Prison,.
and receive information respecting ,the purchase
and sale of a quantity of snitiggled goods. Steele
accordingly went, and savv, the defendant, and
there was in the same room with hint a Man nam-
ed Wickham. A paper yews handed by the de-
fendant to Steele. purporting to be ,of sale
of a large. quantity of contraband goods from
Whalley. to the defendant, who informed Steele
that Laing and Whalley were the persona princi-
pally concerned in the sale and purchase of those
goods. An information was in consequence taken
froM the defendant on•nath 'before the Commis-
sioners of Customs, in which he states!, that on
the 10;11 4unc, 1815, at.persOni named John Daly,
residing in Suffolk-so eet, Southwark, came to
him, and told him a friend of his, named Whalley,
had it large -quantity of contraband goods to dis-
pose of, and asked the deponent to undertake the
hosiness ; and in a day or two afterwards, Whal-
t y to his house, and lett there a la.rgequan-
ity of contraband tOLeign articles, consisting of
camels,' hair shawls, silk itoe,,glpves, acid scarves,
&c. which he gave to deponent
to sell on a einninivii:On at 10 per cent. on
did not2wish to plush:lse for his own account, and
haat he..itr.cienseqp!nee Called on Mr. [ATHA' a", his
11.i:cher-row,
teat, evetiMpin 'Jude. and July,