Star.
London, England, 1827-08-03 00:00:00

DC TASTEV V. LOPIZ.

In this case, which has been so frequently before the
Court and the public,
Mr. HORNE appeared for Don Pedro Lopez, the de-
fendant in the cause, to move his Lordship to dissolve
the injunction which had been granted, and to order tba:
a sum of money, amounting to 15,0001 should be paid
to his client by the plaintiff. The Learned Counsel en-
tered at very great length into the details of the case,
in order to thew the injustice which Don Pedro Lopez
had suffered at the hands of tl:e plaintiff. The Learned
Counsel observed, that it would be apparent, onlooking
at the case, that the Court of Chancery had been rendered
available for the purpose of inflicting injustice and op-
pression on a poor and helpless foreigner, who had the
misfortune, in the year 1816, to be engaged in some corn.
Inercial speculations with Mr. De Tastet, a m-ichent of
acknowledged wealth, and of considerable influence in
the coy. Li that year Mr. Lopez was coi.cerned with the
plaintiff in the cargo of a vessel, the Mercurio Felix.—
The defendant brought an action for the amount of the
cargo, which was tried in the yeat 1818, and he ob-
tained a verdict for 37,0004 A motion for a new trial
was obtained, and an examination of witnesses at Peters-
',nigh granted. Upon the second trial a verdict for
15,000/. was returned for the defendant in this cause.
M.. Paris, who is Counsel for the plaintiff, here
came into Court, and objected to the farther proceeding
in the motion, on account of the notice of the motion
not having been sufficient.
Mr. HORNE said, that notice had been given for the
hearing of the cause before Lord Eldon. That Noble
Lord had certainly heard the case, but he had never
pronounced judgment in it, and this he (Mr. Horne)
sub owed was equivalent to no hearing at all.
Mr. Ptiors contended that such an inference was not
correct. The motion, however, had been once fully
an 3 by the practice of the Court it could not
tome on for a re-hearing without a fresh notice. The
,last notice put in had not been served upon the Clerk
in Court, and therefore it was an inf .rural notice.
The Lean Cifaucexxoa ruled that it was not neces
nary to give a second formal notice, as the motion had
never been, in point of fact, decided.
Mr. Hones then proceeded with the case. In 1818,
a bill was filed by the plaintiff, and the prayer of it
was, that it might be declared that Mr. De Tastet had
an equitable interest in the cargo of the ship. There
had been two orders to amend this bill—the one ob-
tained in September, 1818, and the other in October,
181,9; and the bill, in its amended form, amounted to
1,600 folios. A supplemental bill wasfiled oh the 29 b
of November, 1819; on the 4th of December in that
year'an answer was put in ; on the 18th of December
a further answer; and on the 14th of January, 1820,
a second further answer. To these proceedings suc-
ceeded the filing of a second bell supplemental to that
which had been twice amended; and thus the whole
proc. edings were commenced de novo. The Learned
Counsel then called the attention of the Court to cer;
tain affidavits, in which it was stated (and that state
mint had not been contradicted) that the Attorney
had declared that "he • would keep the cause in the
Court of Chancery for ten years; that it should not be
brought to a termination while he. the Attorney, was
alive; and that he would ruin Mr. Hartley (the solicitor
of .he defendant) by the expenses of the suit."
Mr. HORNE continued—The object in filing the se-
cond supplemental bill was to make Mr. Hartley a de-
fendant in the suit, in order to harass and torment him.
The plaintiff amended his second supplemental bill in
September, 1824., in order to make a dead man a patty
to the suit. The Attorney's determination to continue the
suit would be tolerably well appreciated by the fact of
his having hit upon the ingenious artifice of bringing a
dead man into the field, from whom he could icarcely
have expected that any answer would be obtained.'
The LORD CHANCELLOR inquired if it were really
true that the bill had been filed against a dead man?
Mr HORNE said, it was filed against a person called,
Hipp..iito Joseph da Costa, who had been quietly de.
osited in his grave thirteen months before the bill was
tiled ; and moreover, not only was the man dead, but
the Attorney was very well acquainted with that fact
when he filed the bill.

The LORD CHANCILLOR asked how that appeared?
Mr. HORNC said, that it appeared from affidavits,
which it had not been attempted to dray.
The LORD Criaucer.r.oa—What reason was given
for such a proceeding ?
Mr. WAILENUILD replied, that the only answer which
had been given was, that it was the practice of the
Court.

The LORD CRANCRLLOR wished to know what took
place alter wards?
Mr. WARIIIRLD said, that the plaintiff put in a third
supplemental bill against the widow of Da Costa, and
this being demurred to. the demurrer was allowed.
Mr. HORNE said, that the effect of the whole of these
proceedings, since the year 1818, had been to keep this
unhappy foreigner out of money which the verdict of
an English Jury had declared that he was entitled to.
He 'rusted that his Lordship would speedily decide the
case, and relieve his unfortunate client from the painful
suspense in which he had born so long kept.
Mr. BICICTISTITH, Mr. W•ICRIFIRLD, and Mr. MON-
TAGU, were heard on the same side.

Mr. Puts was about to reply, when
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that the day was too
far advanced for him to hear the reply. As to-morrow
was appointed to hear petitions, this cause could not be
,roceeded with; but he would appoint an early day
`tetore the vacation for concluding the hearing of the
ase, and giving his judgment upon it.
Astis LORDSHIP was about to rise, a person whose
...sine we understood to be Bruce, said he wished :thank-
apt petition, which was in the Vice-Chancellor's paper.
• he transferred to his Lordship's ; and begged also
t.,at a day might be appointed on which it should be
heard. He said that property to the amount of 40,00 W.
would be destroyed, if the petiti 'n, which would no.