Star.
London, England, 1827-12-24 00:00:00

. .
.t COURT OF CRANC.RRY, Damns
• 11111 LING OW SPAIN O. HULLITT AND OMR&

The Loin Cataxest,Loagave judgment on the deli
-
nitriref Which 'was argued in this case some days ago.
The facts appeared to -be, that certain claims having
been made on behalf of the Spanish Government for
iniuries'ifolittaitted by the French armies during the
peat*, ebattbry itsd, possension of Spain under Bona.
parte, a Convention was entered into, by which it was
aetiledthat a certain sum should be appropriated by
tfk Goveneeneot of France for the liquidation of those
thins% • I. consequence of thie,egreetnent, a certain
ltinanut of French reties was inscribed in the great
beak Of Frew* In the name of a person named Lo-
gger*, who was then the accredited agent Of Spain in
Parrs: This person was afterwards replaced by one
Machado. and when the lace civil war in Spain broke
out. this Machado sold out the money which he was
possessed of on account of the Spanish Government,
and came to England, where he deposited a part of the
money is the bands of Hellen and Co. When Iran.
Trinity was restored to Spain, two tribunals which had,
been appointed, one for investigating the claims of
parties to this fund, and the other for settling appeals
from the decision of the former Court, again came into
operation. its the money was found to be in the bands
of Machado, each of these tribunals with the consent of
the King, appointed an agent to endeavour to recover
it: They were empowered to do so by an ;augment
which was stated on the face of the pleading`, and
which appeared tts be erectly similar to that Which
was called in this country a power of auorney.—
Tbe persons to whom this power was given, D'Arcon
and La Cerna, sled r bill in England against Hal.
in and Machado, in the names of themselves and of
the King of Spain. The defendants demurred to
this bill, on the ground that as the attorniee could
have •no interest in the subject of the suit, they
were wrongly joined with the King of Spain. In
deciding this demurrer, the first question was, whether
the defendants had any interest at all, or such an interest
as entitled them to sue in this Court. It had been sug-
gtOed, that the nature of the instrument by which they
were appointed could not be decided without a fele-
rence• to Spanish law, because the document being in
that language, its effect might be different from that
Which its mere words imported. This point appeared,
ho:wever, to have little weight in deciding the demurrer,
because, if the document had any other effect than such
as was apparent on the face of it, the plaintiffs ought to
have let that out in their bill. His Lordship was clearly
of opinion that the power conveyed to the agents. d'Ar•
con and La Cerna, no interest whatever. It was quite
evident upon general principles, that a demurrer wiuld
always old against parties who filed
.a bill, joining
pith themselves having an interest persons who had
none. The inconveniences which must result from such
a practice were solnanifold and so great, that any per-
son who gave the subject a moment's consideration
would see that the rule was founded in sound policy
and justice. •But it was not necessary to decide the
point -on general principles. There were two cases
which had been recently decided, and which were not
yet published, in which the point had been expressly
decided. His Lordship therefore allowed the demurrer.
SOW-discussion arose afterwards as to permission to
the plaintiffs to amend the bill, which the defendants
did not object to, piovided they would pay the costs of
the suit. the plaintiffs Counsel refused this, and at
length it was determined the demurrer should be al-
lowed generally, leaving the plaintiffs to file a fresh bill
if they saw fir. •
!the Loan CHANCBLLOR said it was clear that Ma-
chado had got into his hands a large sum of money
which did not belong to him. Whether his intentions
in doing so were honest or otherwise, was more than
his Lordship could take upon him•elf to say.

IV RE THE REV. W. HOLMES, AN ALLEGED LUNATIC.
Mr. Socsnas, on the part of the. Petitioner for the
Commission in this matter, moved that the Court would
be pleased so direct that the service upon Messrs. Millie
and Parry, Solicit, rsrof a fist mer order of the Coint
for the production of the Rev. Mr. Holmes, before the
Commission appointed to be held at Nottingham, on
Thursday, 27th instant, be deemed good service, The
Learned Gentleman then refuted to affidavits to show,l
that every exertion had been used to serve the order
.upon Mr. Holmes and his wife, a ithout success. Mes-
sengers kad been sent to Liverpool, Bath, and else-
where, but the actual residence of the parties could not
be ascertained. The Solicitor of Mr. Holmes was a Mr.
Griffith, who lived at Pontypool, Montgomeryshire,
upwards of one hundred miles from the residence of
the petitioner. Notice was, therefore, tendered to Milne
and Parry, the town agents of Mr. Griffith, but these
Gentlemen had refused to-acceist of it. The Learned
Gentleman said it was evident that an intention existed
somewhere to baffle the petitioner.
• The Loan CHANCELLOR lamented the great increase
of expense to ahieh the estate in this matter was sub-
jected, and saw no reason why Messrs. Milne and Parry
shanld hare refused to accept the notice.
Mr. HORNS said, he apreared for Messrs. Mine and
Parry, 'who had no objection whatever to any order
that the Court might make; but he would contend, on
their part, that the imputation on his clients, of an
intention to throw impediments in the way of the peti.
trotter, was completely unfounded.
The Loan Cu A NCILLLOR could not under stand, from
the affidavits, that there was any intention to impute to
Maus. Milne and Parly the improper conduct relined
to. The affidavit stated only that some party or other
was desirous of baffling the petitioner, and the ends
of kistice.
The order prayed for was accordingly made.

COURT OF RING'S BENCH, Dec. n.

Land= Sulop before Lord Tsnagnanin and Coalman lurks.
PHILLIPS V. sroimuousg.

This was an action for damages on account of slan-
derous words, uttered by the defendant against the
plaintiff. The defendant pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. BROUGHAM stated, that both plaintiff and de-
fendant were trustees of die Wandsworth toads. Mr.
Phillips, the plaintiff, had long been known as an emi•
:sent coal merchant ; And the defendant, also, had moved
in a very respectable situation Of life. Ou the 29th of
June last, a meeting of the Trustees of the Wandswintls
loath took place, and some alterations' and improve-
anehis, or what, in the 'defendant's estimation, would be
improvements, were proposed by Stonehouse, and ob-
jected to by Mr. Phillips. Upon this a discussion
took place, which gradually became very warm and
angry, for it was not alleged* that the words were
spoken coolly and deliberately. 'ln the course of the
discussion, the defendant, addresiing 'the plaintiff,Called
out to him, " you are an old rogue, i vagabond, and
thief r • Now for the words rogue; rascal, vagabond,
acoindtel, and other such vague Phrases, however, pro-
vokiri obey Might be, the law gave no right of action ;
bat *Ore was the word thief, which amounted to a
charge of felony. Under these circumstances the plain-

I#ooihfswf.ll:l7=2l3=ll=l:
. =LAW DITELLIGENCE.