The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-03-03
United Sintes District Court.
THE CASE OF THE YOUNG CUBAN AND THE SPANISH
CONSUL.

CONSUL.
Before Hon Judge B,tts
MARCEL 2-Francis Elias Hernandez by his merit friend
u. Francis Soughton, Spanish Consul, and Cristobe
Ca,nopeli.Thc Judge rendered elaborate and impor
tant decision in this dlschargng the Consul from
bail wthou. costs, provided he enter appearance In
the suit for false imprisonment The other defendant
Carnovel discharged from arrest with costs upon
he ground that although he might be trespasser yet
he was not consular agent under the treaty or
statutes.
Before giving his decision upon the points OF law his
Homer went the facts of the they have been
ct forth heretofore, but said that he should make
decision upon the general merits Of the case but should
decide 1t only upon points OF law, as follows
Consus, by the law OF nations can claim privi-
ortubjects OF the governments to which they
credited and In civil and criminal cases subject to
the local law In the same with other foreign
residents owing temporary allegiance to the State.
Kent a. 10th ed) and notes. Wheat. Int Law 293.)
2. The Constitution and laws OF the United states
however, appoint the national judiciary in exclusion Of
that Of the States the authorized to take cogn
zapce az suits against corsus. tConst. Art 3, So l.
by treaty q Oct 81 1895, Art 10 it /. stlp uatea
between the United States and Spain that Consuis
sna Be sh S With the pryesss aud
in the ports where their consuls reside are permit
ted to be- g Stat AT Large, 1so)
this case whether the above provision is restricted
the privileges and powers enjoyed BY the consuls Of
tends TO future stpulaons and the privileges
conceded TO the Consul oil France by the treaty OF Au
gust ~ 1898, article z (lOStat. at Large, 1li)
This viii be decided without touching that ques
tion.
s. The consul being by the constitution and statute
laws OF the United states suabs in federal court
clusiyey OF the State courts tons against him
main therein, without regard to the residence of
the plaintiff In a State dern. from that of the defen
can't or TO the aenage OF the plaintiff in the Of
unpriyilegei parties.
II this was not so by the municipal law OF this country
mi or night ,in ba
nhnbtant Of Spanish colony aud to be entitled his
action in this court under article 20 Of ths treaty With
Spain OF October 81 1885, in which cit is agreed that
the inhabitants Of the territories Of each party shall
Fecyey have free access TO the courts Of justice OF
the other, and shall be permitted to prosecute suits
the recovery OF ther properties the payment OF their
debts, and for obtaining satisfaction for the da
which they may have sustained, whether the persons
whom they may sue be subjects citizen OF the
try in which they may be found any othsr persons
whatsoever, who may have taken refuge therein Go
6. In my opinion the plaintiff produced in the arst 10
stance evidence that the Spanish Consul had unla wuy
caused his detention and i'm pr onment cent in law
to authorize process in his favor from this Court to
hold the Consn to bail 10 that compliant The
merits Of that charge cannot be tried on this motion
And the defendant having given strong explanatory and
exculpatory proof ON his part tending to that his
actngs in tho matter were under the authority and at
the request Of the father of the plaintiff not AZ
nstgation OF the authorities OF Cuba from any un
lawful or improper motives OF his own, and also in
sderaton OF his official position and responsibilities
shan direct the orter heretofore granted TO hold the
Consul to bail 10 be discharged his entering his ap
iOn n
lowed to either party.
The evidence in Court satisac orly proves that
Csrnoyel way officially attached to the Consular
oihee as domestic, pupil or consular agent and II in
any way subordinate 10 the Consul acting under his
command, at his instgaton In the arrest and con.
fnemcnt Of the plaintiff complancdo T. he became there
by cotespasser merely, and not party suabls only
in tie United States District Court.
:. This Court has Jurisdiction in actions at
defendant is consul, the pupil of conshi or ecu.
sular agent, Stat at Large IL sec. 81 10 ibid 115
The alienage OF Carnoyeli Ia particular in no way
Court II mish render him liable to arrest la the CIR
cult Court II the plaintiff has legal capacity TO main
tam action against alien in that tribunal q stat.
| nc Iarpe 7S, sec I'D
| den r. go, ynlsriLo 1hompson,) that when a
consul another individual necessarily do.
fendsnts the exclusive Jurisdiction OF tho Uoited States
District Courts suits against consuls brings the
cefen aLt within that jurisdiction by unavoidable i'm
plicalion,n be not sound exposition the act OF
Congress- and OF the authority OF tnis Court 10 does not
meet the present case because parties concerned in
Joint trespass need not necessarily be united In the
ton OF the prosecutor. q Chi,ty P., IS. Johns. r
29O; Livingston Bishop; Denio, 2f5 Norton Va.
Hayes; 10 JshD., 2S1, Guile vs.. Swami
This Court therefore, having Jurisdiction OF the
dered that he be discharged frcm arrest with the costs
OF this motion
The decision having been rendered, Mr.. seigvisk.
counsel for the plaintiff requested that the Court would
make the usual proyiso that suit for false prison
ment should be brought by Carnoveli.
Mr.. Edwaris for the defendant said that the Court
having decided that had no Jurisdiction could not
make fuch order.
Judge Belts finally, at Mr.. sedgwick's request said
that the order should not be definitely entered unit to-
morrow (thisl morning, and he would look at any
thorities which should be handed him mean while.