Star.
London, England, 1826-11-16 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT, Novntasa
1111UIDISAMEL/.MACH/DA.
The particulars of this case (which bas already been before the
public) are briefly these :
By the Treaty of Paris, of 1814 (and subsequent
treaties with the individual States)..the French Govern.
ment bound itself to pay the subjects of the respective
Allied Powtrs, indemnity for the property of individual
persons, or of public bodies (the subjects of such States),
which might have been obtained or sequestrated by the
French Government, during the prece.ling war. By a
treaty of the Seth of April, 1822, between the French
and Spanish Governments a sum in Rentes, representing
a capital of 18 millions and a half of francs, was in
scribed in the Great Book of France to the credit of
the Spanish Government, in full satisfiction of the
claims of all the subjects of the King of Spain
upon the French Government. At the date of the
first treaty, Jose Nagneira was recognised as the re-
-11 presentative of the Spanish Government, The de-
fendant was subsequently appointed his success.r in
that capacity. In consequence of the events of March
1820, a Constitutional Government had been declared
in Spain. Subsequent to the 90th of April, 1822, the
defendant received an order from the then executive
Government of Spain, to take charge of twelve millions
of francs. which remained of the eighteen millions and
a half; and they were accordingly transferred to him
by the French Government. Sometime in the year
1823, the Cortes directed him (Machado) to sell out the
Rentes in question, with which order lie complied, the
produce being 300,0001. sterling, and upwards, and of
which circumstance he informed the Executive Go-
Ivernment in the month of June following, after which he
left France, and removed to London. In the course of
the same month of June, the Executive Government
of Spain wrote to the defendant approving of his con-
duct, and directing him to place the money in the
Bank of England, or to apply it in the purchase of
Exchequer Bills, for account of the Spanish Government.
with which he did not comply, but lodged it with his
own private bankers. The Cottes wishing to apply the
money to the exigencies of the country, requested of
the plaintiff, Mendizabel, who then resided in Spain, to
make certain advances to the Executive Government,
for which they gave him orders or bills of exchange
upon the defendant, to the amount of 86,0001. and up-
warfis. The plaintiff, Mendizabel, was afterwards com-
pelled to Ay from Spain, and take refuge in this coun-
try, in such a hurry, as to be obliged to leave behind
him all his books and documents. He demanded the
money due to him, which the defendant refused to pay,
and then kept out of the way. He was, however, in
the course of the pre.ient year, arrested at the plaintiff's
suit for the 16,0004 in question; under a writ issued out
of the Coutt of CoMition Pleas, in which Court an
action at law is now in progress; to aid in which the
plaintiff filed his bill in this Court for a discovery of
evidence, and for a commission to examine witnesses.—
The defendant pleaded in answer, that he had paid
into the hands of the Sheriff the sum of 86,0001. to
wait the issue of the suit, and that he (Machado) was
not liable to be called upon to pay the money to the
Government of Spain, it having been transterted to
him to meet the claims of parties, whose names he
stated in his plea.
Mr. HZALD, with whom was Mr. Roseau, appeared
in support of the plea, contending that the money in
question was not applicable to the uses of the Spanish
Government, having been transferred by the French
Government to meet the claims of particular persons.
El 'met! in the plea, and to meet which in full the sum was
inadequate. Tne detendan,'s Counsel resisted the prayer
for discovery of evidence, on the ground that the docu-
ments sought for were confidential communicationk.

between the French and Spanish Gowei-ntrents, or which
he had been the medium. The Leal ned Gentlemen re-
lied upon the cases of Williains v. E+erett, 14. East, 522.
and Yeates v. Bell, in 3d Barnewall and A:th.rson, 648.
Mr. SUOMI, with whom was Mr.. A NDERTON, ave
peared in opposition to the plea, c .ntending that the
Court ought overt ale it, inasmuch as to allow the plea,
would be to terminate the action at common law, to
maintain which the discovery and commission prayed for
were absolutely necessary. The Learned Gentlemen con-
tended, that the money in question must be viewed as
disposable by the King of Spain, and cited the cases of
Kinder Williamson, and of Hyndman v. Taylor, 2d
Brown, 7 ; also a case in 2d Dickens, 651.
Mr. Hut.,, replied, and cited Sibbald and Bailey, 15 Vesey, in
support of the defendant's plea.
The arguments being concluded,
The Vsca Cnasetem.oa called for the treaties and conventions
referred to, and postponed his judgment.

COLOMBIAN 00VMUOIMIT O. ROTHSCUILD AND OTHIRS.
This case, which grew out of the loan contracted for
by Messrs. Goldsmid and Co. with the Colombian Go•
vertiment, came before the Court on demurrer. The
pleadings only were read, and his Honour ordered the
case to stand over for argument until Wednesday next.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 15.
THE ICING s 4 THR INHRIRTAIRTS OP CRAYPORIX
Upon an appeal against the order of two Justices, by
which Sarah Stone and her children were removed from
the p4rish of Bexley to the parish of C. ayford, the Ses-
sion, confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of the
Court on the following case: At Michaelmas, 11t24,
Th•,m .s Stone hired and to k possession of a house in
the parish of Bexley, in Kent, at the rent of 121. per an-
num, which he occupied till The 26th September, 182.5,
when he died, the b•.dy remaining in the house till the
30th of September, the day of the funeral. The first
three quarters rent had been paid quarterly by Stone.
fhe I.st quarter's rent was paid by the widow, who re.
mined with her family in the house, till removed by
order to their last settlement in the parish of Crayford.
The parish of Crayiord appealed against the order of
removal, which was confirmed by the Sessions; and the
only question now for the consideration of the Court
was, whether, under the 59 George 111. c. 50. the con-
tinuance of the possession of the house by the widow
after the death of her husband was a sufficient occupa-
don for one year, by the person hiring the same, to gain'
a settlement for the widow and her family in the parish
of Bexley ?
Mr. DAVID PoLLoCK, in :hewing cause against the
rule nisi which had been obtained, observed that this
was the first case under the 59 George 111. c. 50. which
had been submitted to the decision of this Court, but he
contended there was nothing to shew that there had
been that occupation which was required by the act..
The continuation of the corpse of the tenant in the house
could net be construed into such occupation, and the
payment of the concluding quarter's tent by the widow,
or her continuance in possession, was quite immaterial
to the case, and by no means a compliance with the
provisions of the statute.

Mr. BOLLARD, on the other side, maintained that
the residence of the widow was a sufficient continuance
of the tenantry to satisfy the meaning of the act. This
was a case where the circumstances were of so peculiar
a nature, Oat the only question was, whether the sta-
tute had not be en in spirit complied with ?
Mr. Justice BA yLer.—When was the settlement gained by Stone
In the pariah of Baxley ?
Mr. 80uja,..--f confess, my Lord, I am certainly driven to a
constructive Settlement
Mr: Justice BAYLM—It appears that the pauper's
husband never did gain a settlement, as he died on the
26th of September, three days before the expiration of
the year required by the statute. In all these cases the
safest way is to go by the words of the Act of Parlia-
ment, and according to them it is quite clear that the
hiring, occupation, and payment of the rent, for the
term of one whole year at the least, must be by the
person hiring the same. There is no mention made in
the Act of the widow and children of the parties. and I
am therefore of opinion that the decision of the Quarter
Sessions is correct, and the pauper is rightly settled at
Crayford.— Rule discharged:

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 15.
The Court was occupied until two o'clock in bearing justifications
of bail.

Mr. Justice Past then commenced sitting at Niti Prizes, but no
case of any importance came on for trial.

COURT OF ADMIRALTY, Nov. IS.
The Court was opened pro forma i but no public business took
place, on account of the opening of Convocation. Dr. DAnaatty
presided, as Surrogate, in the absence of Lord &town:.