The Sun.
London, England, 1828-11-19 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCt.-(illtS DAV.)

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Nothing of importance occurred in this Court

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT.
JUDGMENT,--G UATEMALA LOAN.
'TAYLOR V. BARCLAI".

The VICE-CIIANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in ,
this case, which came before him upon a demurrer
to the plaintiffs' bill. The bill was filed, for a. dis-
covery in aid of an action at law against the defend-
ants, who were the agents of the Guatemala Re-
public, for the recovery of certain deposits lodged
with them on account of the loan contracted for
that Government. The bill charged, that the de-
fendants acted in the transaction as the agentsof the
" Federal Republic of the Central Provinces of
South America," which was described as an inde-
ptsndent and recognised state. To this bill the
defendants put in a demurrer, on the ground that
there was, in fact, no such independent and recog-
nised state known to this country, as that described
by the plaintiffs. His Honour, in giving judgment,
said, that in consequence of the argument used at
the hearing, he had communicated with the re.
reign Office, for the purpose of ascertain-
ing how that fact stood. In answer to
this inquiry, he received official information
that the Federal Republic of the central
provinces of South America had not been recognized
as an independent state by this country. Of course,
when the plaintiffs described it as an independent
and recognized state, they must be under stood to
mean that it had been acknowledged by the Go-
vernment of this country. It was, in his Honour's
opinion, the duty of the Court to take notice of
matters affecting the relations of this country with
other states, and to look to the real facts, rather than
to the representations of suitors in that respect. He
saw very little to distinguish this case in principle
from that of Taylor v. Bowles, although, in that in-
stance the bill had been filed for relief as well as for
a discovery. The case turned upon the question
whether the King's- Courts could attend to the
concerns of parties with the agents of a Government
not recognised by this country. Lord Eldon then
laid it down as a general doctrine of policy
not to allow persons to sue in our Courts in respect
of transactions with a Government not recognized by
his Majesty. Another case had been decided on
exactly similar grounds, where a party had advanced
money on account of a contract, for the purchase of
some salt mines from an agent of the Colombian
Government. The defendant in that case obtained
mines from the Colombian Government, in condi-
tion of his advancing a loan ; not being able to pro-
vide the whole sum, and being desirous of not for-
feiting what he conceived an advantageous contract,
he came to this country and sold a portion of
his interest under the contract, for 500,000 dol-
lars. An application was subsequently made for
an injunction to restrain tre defendant from trans-
ferring or assigning away that share of the
mines to which the sum of 500,000 dollars
had reference. This was an application which, un-
der other circumstances, would instantly have been
granted, but Lord Eldon refused it, because of the
representation that the original contract was with
the Columbian Government, not then recognised by
this country. His Lordship said,, that as a Judge
sitting in one of his Majesty's Courts, he could not
then take notice of the Government of Columbia.
In the present case the Federal Republic of the
Central Provinces of South America was not re-
cognised by his Majesty at the time the trans-
actions took place between the plaintiffs and the
defendants, nor had it been recognised up to this
day ; and, in his Honour's opinion, he was bound to
take official notice of the truth of that fact, notwith-
standing the averment to the contrary in the record.
If parties pleased to set out matters that were histo-
rically false, it clearly was not right that the Court
should take them as true. Without giving any opi-
nion as to what his decision would be if the plain-
tiffs' bill had not contained the averment that this
Republic, was an independent State, his Honour
felt himself bound to allow the demurrer.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
(TRIAL AT BAR.)

ROWE V. BRENTON•-DOE V. BRENTON•••-•TlIE RING V,

ROWE AND BRENTON.

These trials being fixed to come on this morning,
as soon as the doors of the Court were opened, the
crowd of respectably-dressed persons took possession
of all places in the Court devoted to the public, and
the passages were all crowded to suffocation ; even
the space of the Court between the bench and the
Counsel was filled with well-dressed persons.
On Lord TENTERDEN taking his seat, he stated
that he would fine any person whom he should see
standing between the Jury and the Counsel. The
spaetrsdoontsmw
on
roi tthheen
floooc cr,u tand tlhi aeti
rspace m
pi tlnemievda
si a tfeolly.
lowed by the others standing betwen the bench ttnd
the bar. His Lordship, however, routed them, and
threatened to fine any person who refused to with-
draw when requested to do so by, the officer.
These cases, which seemed to have excited such
interest in the public mind, arose from the follow-
ing facts :—Mr. Joshua Rowe, father of the present
plaintiff, came into possession, in 1814, of an estate
in Cornwall called Llewellen, and in 1820 he opened
a mine for copper ore, which proved of great value.
The owners of a neighbouring mine claimed a right
to the vein of copper, and carried away some of the
copper ore raised by the plaintiff, who brought' an
action for the recovery of the value, but a verdict
was returned for the defendant. An action ofeject-
ment was subsequently brought to recover posses-
sion of the mine which had been taken by the
defendant, other proceedings were also gone into,
but no definite decision was come to. The cause
was now brought before a Jury in Hertfordshire, and
an extraordinary display of legal talent was arrayed
on the occasion. The plaintiff had engaged: Messrs.
Brougham, Erskine, and Follet. The Crown,
however, having, as Duke of Cornwall, and en-
titled by manorial right to the minerals found in
that county, put in a claim to the property
claimed by both parties, defended the present action
by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the SOLICITOR-GE-
NERAL, Sir J. SCARLETT, and Messrs. HARRISON
and COLERIDGE. The trial is expected to last two
days.

COURT OF ARCHES.
WILLIAMS V. WILLIAMS.

This was a suit instituted by the wife, for a resti-
tution of conjugal rights.
Dr. PIIILLIMORE (Counsel for Mrs. Williams)
stated that no opposition had been entered-.
The CoURT, therefore, ordered the libel to be
admitted. ,

BURGOYNE V. FREE.
In this long-litigated suit a new witness was sworn,
in the usual form, to answer the interrogatories that
would be submitted to him.

BROWN V. BROWN.

The KING'S ,ADVOCATE (br.jenner) said, this
unfortunate case now came before the Court on the
question of alimony. It was a suit instituted
theby
Mrs. Brown against her husband, by reason of cruelty
and adultery. Mr. Brown was a farmer, residing at
St. Ives, Huntingdonshire, and at the time this
suit was commenced disputed the validity of
marriage. The Court, however, decided that
question against him; and to enable it to come
to a conclusion respecting alimony, ordered
him to make affidavits of his circumstances. This he
had accordingly done, wherein he states, that since
the commencement of the suit he had conveyed the
whole of his copyhold estate to trustees, for the
benefit of his five children -by a former wife ; that
it is not of more value than 1,2004 and is encum-
bered to the amount of 1,2001., and that he was
not at the present time
.possessed of any property
whatever, except his furniture and wearing apparel.
The Learned Counsel contended, that he must be
considered, by his own affidavits, to be worth 3,0001.
For the Court would never allow a person in such
circumstances, to evade the payment of alimony,
during the progress of the suit, by the conveyance