The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-13 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUEI?, Dec.l2.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, in London, be 'ore the Loim
CIIIEF BARON and Common Juries.)
CHANCELLOR V SAMBROOK.

This was an action on the case for injuries done to a
valuable horse, to which the defendant had pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. Humfrey and Mr. Woolrych for the de-
fendant.

The plaintiff was the well-known proprietor of
the omnibuses running between Brompton and the City,
and the defendant al coal merchant, carrying on business
at the Arundel Wharf, Arundel-street. The transaction
which gave rise to the present actioa occurred on the 24th
of April last. About two o'clock on that day one of the
plaintiff's omnibuses was travelling from the City towards
the IVest-end, and met with no interruption or accident
till it came to St. Clement's Church, in the Strand, when
the driver, observing that a waggon was coming up
Arundel-street, and intending to proceed in a contrary
direction, drew up close to the pavement immediately
opposite the Crown and Anchor in the Strand, to give
the waggon ample room to pass. The waggon, how-
ever, which was afterwards found to be the property of
the defendant, turned so sharply round the corner of
Arundel-street and the Strand, that the wheels grazed
the lamp-post, then ran against the pole of the omnibus,
and finally passed over the hoof of the off horse draw-
ing the omnibus, inflicting injuries that ultimately re-
sulted in the death of th animal. It was to recover
damages for the loss the plaintiff had sustained by this
accident that the present action was brought.
Evidence having been adduced to prove these facts,
Mr. 1117317 RM" addressed the jury fur the defendant,
and afterwards called a number of witnesses to prove
thnt the accident would not have happened had the driver
of the omnibus exercised due and ordinary caution in the
conduct cf his vehicle and horses.

The jury found a verdict fur the defendant, on the
ground that the occurrence was an unavoidable accident.

BAIL COURT, Dec. 11.

(Before Lord Chief Justice DertmAN, Mr. Justice PAT-
TESON, and MT. Justice COLERIDGE.)
At the sitting of the Court this morning their Lord-
ships gave judgment in the following case, which has
been so often before the public.

BARON DE BODE V. THE QUEEN.

Lord DENMAN said it would be necessary to enter at
some length into the preliminary history of this case, for
the purpose of explaining the general propositions of the
supplicant.. It was alleged that the money which the
supplicant claimed had been paid into the Bank of Eng-
land, and that it ,vas virtually received by the Crown in
trust for him, for the purpose of paying him compen-
sation for the property he had lost at the French Revo-
lution. It was alleged that this was as clear a fact as if
the supplicant's name had been mentioned in the treaty
that had been entered into between England and France.
On the part of the Crown very long and able arguments
had been urged to prove that even altholigh the main
facts put forward by the supplicant had keen proved in
evidence, still there could be no judgment in favour of
the supplicant in the form of his proceedings, inasmuch
as the property provided for by the treaty was only land
or chattels. The Court at first might feel some regret
that this line of objection had not been adopted at an
earlier period against the supplicant's claim, for it
might have had the effect of bringing the whole pro-
ceedings to a close, and have thereby prevented c large
expenditure of money. Coisidering, however, the nature
of the authorities that had been cited, and the obscurity
which hangs over their law, the course that had hem
taken could not excite surprise ; for it was very natural
that the advisers of the Crown should require all the
facts to be distinctly proved which could constitute the
claim, without surrendering one point of their jurisdic-
tion. The dignity of the Crown was such, as to require
that if the right existed it should be pursued, without
corning to any decision upon matters merely technical ;
and it was the duty of the Court to examine as to
whether the facts which had been found by the jury
were such as to establish the rights of the supplicant.
The Baron de Bode made his claim in the character of a
British subject, for compensation in respect to property
which had been confiscated in France
.during the Revo-
lution. His Lordship having alluded to the conventions
of 1806, 1815, and the Act of the 59th Geo. 111., pro-
ceeded to say, it was declared that there was a sum of
418,0001. deposited in the hands of Commissioners to
pay off those claims which were guaranteed under terms
of the treaty between England and France, and that
more than 200,0001. of this money still remained in the
Bank of England, having been paid them by the Go-
vernment ; and the supplicant claimed this sum, to
make good the amount of compensation which he
sought. The first step taken by the supplicant was in
support of his character of a British subject, and the
Court would assume, without giving that point conside-
ration, that his position so far was satisfactorily proved.
The next question, however, was whether the supplicant
was in such a situation as that the treaty could be fairly
said to apply to him. The words of the treaty were to
the effect, that the subjects of the two powers residing
in each other's country shall be privileged to continue
their particular: avocations without disturbance, so long
as they committed no offence against the laws of the
country in which they were living ; but in case of any
suspicion of misconduct against the laws being com-
mitted, the parties shall be entitled to twelve months'
notice, in order that they may have full opportunity of
removing their property and effects frora the country.
This favour, however, was to be denied them if they
acted contrary to the established law of the country. That
was agreed to in 1806. In 1814 a provision was made for
the sequestration of the property of those who had com-
mitted certain offences against the laws of the country.
The treaty in 1815, in the 9th article, considered the ne-
cessity,of executing the four additional articles of the
previous treaty, and it said that the subjects of the
English Government had claims upon the French Go-
vernment, such persons as, since the Ist of January,
1791, had suffered confiscation, and that they should be
idemnified and paid when their claims should be admitted
as legitimate. This was a disputed passage of the treaty,
and it was said that it only recognised those' claims, and
indemnified such, as were made according to the terms,
and under the conditions, to be hereafter stipulated. In
the treaty of commerce which had been entered into, in
respect to emigration, it was declared that the supplicant
should set forth the whole particulars upon which he
founded his claim; but the second clause stated that if
these conditions were violated by him, he was to be pre •
vented from removing his property and effects. Tha
spirit of the two treaties, it was said, engaged to protect
the supplicant's property, provided that he made it clear
that the revolutionary government had confiscated his
property. The inquisition, however, merely stated the
facts that had occurred, and left the Court merely to
draw the inference that the property had been unlaw-
fully confiscated. It did not say that this confiscation
immediately followed the revolution in the country;
on the contrary, it appeared that there was a viola-
tion of the law of emigration on the part of the sup-
plicant. The Court could not take judicial notice of the
meatning of the word, nor pronounce the law in respect
to i. The general proposition could not be maintained
w.iless it was proved that the individual was not in any
.ay amenable to French law. If this law of emigration
was not proved absolutely void es against the supplicant,
they found that there was no complaint ever made of the