Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-05-20

The Judicial Powers Of Cousuls.
INTERESTING CASE In THE COURT In GENERAL
This afternoon. in the Court in General Term,
the case of Francis Dainese against Charles
Hale was taken up-Messrs Cuppy, Henkle,
and Arrick for plaintiff, and Col. w. Penn
that the defendant as Consul General of Egypt
on or about November sd, 1864, did claim TO
have jurisdiction in controversy between the
plaintiff and r. II. and U. b. Allen, and unlaw-
fully did seize certain goods, which he detained
for a long period of time, and that defendant
maliciously issued q pretended process of gar
nishment ordering certain creditors not to make
payment to him. He further states that at the
commencement of the proceedings and during
their tendency he and the Aliens were resi-
dents of the United States. and were not resi-
and he AYERS that by reason of the seizure he
suffered great loss, and he brings suit for $780,
600 damages.
THE DEFENDANT
sets up as defense that at the time said several
trespasses and grievances are alleged to have
been committed he was Consul General of the
United States at Alexandria, Egypt, duly fur
nished with a letter of credence from the Presi-
dent Of the United States to His Highness The
Pacha of Egypt; that, as such Consul General,
he held the highest diplomatic rank of any rep
resentative Of the United States in the country
to which he was accredited, and that by virtue
of the laws of the United States he exercised
the functions and duties OF a minister. That
when he took cogniZance OF the cause of the
Aliens against the plaintiff, the said plant fl
had a stock of goods in store in EgvpI
That in his official capacity consul general as
aforesaid, by the law of nations, well as the
laws of the United States he was invested w.th
judicial functions and power over citizens of the
United States residing in said country of Egypt:
and by virtue of said authority and power, he
did the things complained of by plaintiff, and
that he Is liable only to the United States and
not to this plaintiff. To this defence the plain
tiff demurred, and the defendant filed his Join
der. The issue of law was heard at the special
term in April, and the court, upon consider
alton, overruled the demurrer, from which
ruling and judgment the plaintiff appealed TO
the general term.
THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS
!. That neither the laws OF Turkey nor of this
country authorized the defendant to do the
things complained of in his declaration. 2. That
however this may be since the passage of the
amendatory act of 1866, the laws of the United
ever upon the defendant when he committed the
grievances complained of. 3. That the treaties
between the United States and Turkey contain
no grant or stipulation authorizing American
Consuls to exercise civil jurisdiction in Turkey.
4. That there is no law or usage Of Turkey and
no law of the United States authorizing Ameri-
can cOnsuls in Turkey to attach the property of
persons who are not within their consulate. 5.
That whatever power cOnsuls in Turkey NAV
possess to hear causes between American citi-
zens residing there, it is an executive and not a
judicial power. 8. That the process of attach
ment is an extraordinary remedy, resting ex-
cluSvely upon statutory enactment, and when
resOrted to by an executive officer without au-
thority of law, constitutes trespass, for which
he is liable in an action for damages.