The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-06-10


George Danorth for respondent
No. 81. schrcyer VS.. The Mayor.-Argued by +. l.
Stetson Tor appellant, D. NJ. Porter Tor respondent
No. ~. Acvcany VS.. The Mayor, &c.-pussed.
No. 63 Dannal VS.. The Mayor, &c--Argued Ivy John
n Hand for appellant. +. l. stetson for respondent
No. u Ellen Callahan, exccutrx, &c, appellant, VS..
The Mayor, &c, OF New York, respondent Submitted
Tor appellant; argued by D. Dean Tor respondent.
appellant, II. Boardman Smith Tor respondent
Adjourned
DAY cALgxpAR FOR MONDAY.
Nos. 1872 226, 233, 234, 23d, 237, 239 and 243.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
WASHINGTON, June 0, 1876.
OPINIONS
The JUDICIAL POWER coSsULs, HOW DETkKMIxED-
COURT WILL Aor TAXI JUDICIAL NOTICE
EiGN LAWS
Francis Dancse, plaintiff in error vs. Charles Hale
In error 10 the Supreme Court OF the District OF Coium
bia-This action was brought TO recover tho value OF
certain goods, chaitcls and credits OF the plaintiff,
which the defendant In November, 1854, then being
Consul General Of the United States in Egypt, caused
TO be attached The declaration alleged thut the deend
ant, by usurpation and abuse Of his power such
Consul General and for the malicious purpose of MUIR
ing the plaintiff, took cognzancc Of certain contro-
vcrsy tho plaintiff and Richard H. and Anthony
b. Allen, fall beng citizens OF the United States and
none OF them residents OF or sojourners within the
the order OF attachment by virtue OF which
the seizure IN question made The
defendant pleaded .nat az the time Of
Consul General OF the United States Egypt, and
furnished with letter OF crcdence from the President
OF the United States to the Pacha that in his said
official capacity he exercised the functions and duty
Minister, ana by the law OF nations, well Az the
laws Of tho United States, ne was invested With
judicial functions ana power over citizens Oi the United
States residing in Egypt and IN the exercise OF thcse
functions, took cugnzance OF the referred TO
tue declaration and issued the attachment complained
TO this plea there was general demurrer
The defendant by his plea, asked the Court to take
judicial notice that his oicia character gave him the
jurisdiction which he assumed 10 exercise. Could the
Court do thisy Can this Court doity
Upon these facts tho Court decide In substance
tolIowsJudciai powers are not necessarily incident
the Office OF consul, though usually conferred upon
consus of Christian nations pagan and Mohammeuan
countries TOR the decision OF controversies betw
their fellow citizens or subjects residing commorant
there atd Tor the punishment OF crimes committed by
them. The existence and extent of such depend
the treaties and positive laws OF the nations concerned
In Turkey Tor example, the judicial powers OF consuls
depend on the treaty stpuations conceded by the
crnmcnt VI that country, and on the al The
cfa states appointing the consus The treaty between
the Uned states ana Turkey made IN 1862 az not that
made in 1881 has The effect Of concedng To the Uncd
States The same privilege ID respect OF consular courts
and jurisdiction which arc enjoyed by other Christian
nations, including civil as We'll us well us criminal jurs
dictcn and the act OF Congress juno ~ 1850 esiab
lishcd thu necessary rcgu atoms Tor carrying tho
jurisdiction effect But this jurisdiction is in
terms only sucn as IS allowed by the laws OF Turkey
IT'S usagcs IN It's intercourse with other Christian
nations, those laws or usagos must be shown IN order
to know tho precise extent OF the jurisdiction. The
Court cannot ordinarily take judicial notice OF orcgn
laws nnd usages; party claiming the benefit OF hem
by way of Justification, must plead them The defend
ant as Consul General OF Egypt In 1851 issued an at
L.chncnt against The goods OF the plaintiff there STU
ac neither the plaintiff nor the persons at whose suit
the attachment ISSUED being residents or soJourn
IA the TURKISH dOmInions but both being citizens
Of the United States. For tins action the plaintin
brought suit 10 .ccovcr The value Of the goods AZ
taCiicu. incident thereto claimed Jurisdiction
entertain tho suit in which the attachment was
issued. Held that the plea detective not set
ting forth the usaecs oil Turkey upon which, by the
treaty and act OF Congress c,nierrng the ursdion,
the latter was made 10 depend and which alone would
show ITS precise extent, and that |; embraced tho
in question. Reversed Mr. Justice Bradley delivered
the opinion.
CONTRACTS IL THE CONFEDERATE STATES DURING THE
wAk--wnEN vAIID--TIE MEASURE or DAMAGks-
No. y. The Wilmington ana Weldon Railroad Com
pany, plainin IN error. VS. Henry King, executor OF
Hardy King deccascd-ln error to the supreme Court
the state OF Norlh Carolina The contract between
defendant the plaintiffs testatrx, upon hich
The present action was brought. was made In North
Carolina during the by lis wood purchased
w the raroad company was to be paid Tor ~ Cvned-
crate currency The Treasury notes Of the Confederate
government at an early period III the war; IN great
measure superseded within the nsurgcnt States
and though not made legal tender, constituted tne
principal currency IN which the operations OF business
there conducted Great injustice would there
lore, have followed any other decision invalidatng
transactions otherwise Tree IRON objection because OF
the reference OF the parties 10 those notes
OF value But those notes were issued IN large
quantities to meet the Increasing demands OF the Con-
icdrracy anu as the probability OF their Ultimate
redemption became Christianity less as tho war
progressed they necessarily deprecated IN
value IRON month to month, until Ia some
portions Of the during The year 1854 The
purchasing power OF IRON s2l upward OF sac OF the
notes only equaed that Of 81 IN lawful money Of the
United States. When The ended the notes Of course
became worthless and ceased 10 DC current, but con-
made upon their purchasuoie quaty existed in
large numbers throughout the insurgcnt States AZ
was therefore manifest that " these contracts
be enforced with anything ike justice 10 the parties,
evidence must be received as TO the value OF the notes
the and the LOCALITY where the contracts
made and IN the principal case cited sucn evidence
WIS held admissible. Indeed IN no other mode could
the racts made by the parties be enforced. 10
have allowed any dMcrcnt rule IN esmating the value
OF The contracts aud asccrtaining damages Tor their
breach wonId have been 10 sanction PLAN departure
from the stpulatonsof tho parties and 10 make for
them and different contracts. The State Court IN
s,ruc,ed there might DO a recovery Of .he vane
OF the currency. The decision here ia
substance follows :--C0ntracts made dur
nr the IN OF the Confederate states, payable IN
confederate currency bat not designed ~ their
origin 10 AID the insuri DICTIONARY government, are
not, because thus payable Invalid between the parties.
Ia actions upon such Contracts The evidence ns 10 the
.luc currcncy that time and Ia the locality
where tie contracts were made IL admissible. A stat
ute III NorA Carolina, OF March, 1906 cnacing that
nil evil actions or dcnts aurins the late
war IN which tho nature oil the ou CATION Is not set
lorth nor The value Of the property Tor which such
dcbs created " saicd u shall be admissible Tor
either party to show on Tue trial by affidavit or other
w.sc what was the confederation o. the contract, and
tlat jury III uAkuk iHrT NcfuIci sHhit TIE
sanc INTO consideration and determine the value .!
SAID contract present currency ~ the psrticuar
locality In w.ich 1t be performed and render
verdict accordingly" Ia SO far as the same author
the Jury such actions upon the evidence
thus before them TO place their own estimate
upon the value OF the contracts instead Of taking the
value stipulated by the parties mpars the obligation
OF sucn contracts. and IS therefore, whn the inbt
btou upon the state OF the federal constitution Ac.
rordinely. IN action upon contract ot wood sold
in at state during the war. Mt rcs payable 10 Goa
currency Instruction OF tue Court 10 III"
Jur, that the pnti emitted 10 recover tie value
tho wood wshout reference TO the vslic 81 the cur
rency stipulated was erroneous Reversed Mr.. Jus
FcId delivered The ol nion. Mr. Justice Bradley
dlsscutcd
axSrs-ri1 a.ASriS0 PArksr p,Ks >Or EstAH
Lssn VALIDITY.
y" 2l5 CAST SCI MI Joseph EccScndoricr W Eoer
aagd fabcr--Apresl from lhc circuit Court for tie