Star.
London, England, 1807-11-27 00:00:00

HUBBARD In JOHNSTON.

This ca.le, which was argued in Trinity Term
by Mr. SCOTT, for the plaintiffs in error, againft
four judgments of the Court of King's Bench, and
by Mr. HALL, for the defendants, was again argued
at great length.
On the part of the defendants, who were plain-
tiffs in the Court of King's Bench, it was contended,
that if a snip belonging to Calcutta were to be pm.-
chafed by a perfon refiding in London, while the was
upon the fear, that after deliver icg her cargo at any
port in England to which fie was bound, accor-
ding to the rsth and 16th fektions of the 3.; Geo.
111. cap. 68. the fhtp mull go back again to Calcutta
empty, to comply with the requifites of thole fec.
tions at that port, and then return to England be-
tore the could trade for the benefit of the purchafer.
• On the part of the plaintiffs in error, this was
contended to he a monfirous propolition, and that
thefe fallow, by a aria, legal, and grammatical con-
ttrOlion, applied only to cafes of transfer from one
perfon to another perfon of the fame port ; and that
therefore, the port of the owner being the port of
the (hip, the (hip mutt of necetllty, after her voyage,
return to her own port, and then all the inconveni-
ence fuggefled by the other fide would not apply.
The Court took further time to confider the cafe.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, N0V.2.5.
THEODORE CRITICO.

Mr. Serjeant BEST moved, that the conditional
rule he had obtained for difcharging this perfor,
from cuilody, on the ground of his being privileged
(torn arrell, in the capacity of Turk& Confol,
iimuld now he made abfolute.

Mr. Serjeant Bailey (hewed caufe againff this rule.
He Rated, that he had affidavits in his hand, not
from the-Turkilh Miniller (for he would conceive it
beneath his dignity to make an affidavit) but from
his interpreter, and from a Mr. John Lowe, the
clerk to the attorney in this caufe. The affidavit of
the latter was, in fuhflance, that the Defendant
Theodore Critico, had been arrefled for a debt of
341. at the fail of the Plaintiff, and put in bail, but
the hail had fince rendered him up, and he was now
in the King's Bench prifon. (The Court hereupon
a(ked, how their juri•didion could extend to the
King's Bench prifon ? To which it was anfwered,
that the anion on which the Defendant was arrefled,
commenced in the (k)mmon Pleas, and he was re.
moved from the Fleet to the King's Bench by Ha.
heal Corpus.) The next affidavit was from the in•
terpreter of his Majefly, in the relations with the
Minilieu of the Turkifh Empire. He fwore that he
was well acquainted with the Defendant, Theodore
Critico, who had been appointed by the Sultan Selina
as Skia-bender, or Conful General of the Sublime
Porte, at London. The appointment which had
been made by the Sultan Salim, had been approved
of by his Majelly. There were alfo affidavits from
the Sheriff's officer who arrefted him, and from the
Plaintiff's attorney. When the Sheriff's officer firft
came to arrea him, the Defendant told him he was
privileged, and the Sheriff's officer confidered him-
Self bound to enquire into the nature of his protection.
He fearehed the books of the Sheriffs of Middlefex,
and nn fuck protedion appeared : he then called at
the office of Mr. Canning, the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, and was there informed, that they
knew no Inch perfon as privileged from arrefl, and
that Theodore Critico was not then the Turkifh Con-
ful. The attorney for the Plaintiff afterwards called
at the Foreign office, and Saw the Under Secretary,
and Mr. Itoilettoa, who is at the head of the parti.
cular department with which this was conneded.—
' Mr. Rolletton informed him, that Critico was not
then Conful General, nor, if he had been Conful,
would he have been, in that capacity, free from ar •
rest. The entitle of proceeding in the office was this:
The Ambaffadors fent to the Foreign Office a lift of
their Servants, and the perfons attached to their Ent-
baffy. The perfons named in this ha were protected
from atrelt, and notice was fent to the Sheriffs of
Middlefex, in whore books thole proteCtions were en.
tered. It had never been underffood, however, that a
Conful was entitled to this proteOion ; or, if it were,
the Defendant was no longer Conful ; and if he had
not been exprefsly removed, the dethronement of the
Sultan Salim, or the exilting holtilities with Tut key,
would have vacated the appointment.
Sir JAMES MANSFIELD Paid, that if the prnte(tion
was only as to a fetvant of the Ambaffador, and the
Ambaffador had not fent in his name, it was clear
1 that he was not entitled to it.

Mr. Serjeant BEST, in reply, faid, that it was tot
as attached to the Embaly, or fervant of the Am-
baffador, that the Defendant claimed the privilege,
but it was as Conful General, appointed by the Fir
man of the Grand Signior, and approved of by his
Majefty under his fign manual. He had the original
Finnan of the Grand Signior then in the Court.
Sir Jesus MarisrrELD46 There is no occalion to
(hew us that, for we cannot nuderfland a word of it."
Mr. Serjeant Bssr continued—The ground that
he relied on was not that the Defendant was a perfon
belonging to the Embaffy, and therefore claimed
protection under the flatute of Qzeen Anne, but it
was that he had been regularly appointed and re-
ceived as Conful General ; and that the perfon of a
Conful General was protested, not by a particular
AEt r.f Parliament, but by the law of nations. This
was alerted exprefsly by one of the ableft writers on
the law of nations (Vatel, book 2. chap. 2.) and
there were no adjudged cafes in oppofition to fo re
fpeaable an authotity. If the perfon of a Conful
General was entitled to this protedion, he lhould
con:end that the protettion continued until his fuc-

eefror arrived. VrairefpeCt to Ambaffadort, this was
oniverfally the cafe except in Turkey, where they
fometimes lent Ambafradors to the Seven Towers
the moment the nation they belonged to was at war
with them ; but this was not the praCtice of the more
civilized nations. His Majelly might have fent the
Defendant out of his dominions if he thought pro-
per ; but while he remained in the country, or until
his' fucceffor arrived, he had a right to the privileges
attached to the fituation to which he had been regu-
larly appointed.
Sir JAMES MANSIIELD laid, that as it was not much
the pratflice of the Turkilh Empire to have regular
Ambafradors or Crnfuls, it was poliible that his fuc-
celror might never arrive.
Mr. Serjcant BEST oblerved, that it had been the
praftice latterly, and for the lall ten years, there had
been a Turkifh Minifler in London.

The Court ordered the arguments to (land over for
a day or two, until farther enquiries fhould be made.