Vice-Chancellor's Court.
The Times, 1824-11-03T00:00:00

oIevr. tOE reaa volumsinous pleasliaga in this cause, the aub'tan,:e ow which was reducible to these facts ;-that the plintifl A dnmiral Jabat, was the Envoy from the Spanish (iovernment to this country in tic vear 1821 ; that at the close of that vear the Cortes of Spain enrterecl into arrangements for raising a large sum of money by way of loart for thie exigencies oi the state; and that through tfie agency of certain foreigners wvho were employed to deliver the inscriptions and certificates deposited by the Spanish Grovernment for the nego- tiatien of the loan, the house of Bernales and Co. was appointed to conduct in London the nccessarr pecuniary flatters, to give effect to the original inteition of the parties' thit while the busiress re- Imained in the hands of Bernales and Co., the: house sccepted bills drawn by the Spanish Government to the antount of O,N,illlh but dishonoured others which were subsequently drawn from iSpain to a large amnou!nt; that in consequence of their so refusiig to accept the panish bills, the Cortes, on ihe t 6lth of May, 1872, annulled the previous decree intrustinpr tteir peciniasy affairs to the agencv of ernales and Clo., revoked the ingcriptions intrusted to thenm, and substituted in their place a new entry for 44,000,000 of reals in the book of rentes of their Government, remitting at the same tinme, through a new arrangement cottducted by certain foreizners, new inscriptions and certificates, whiclt were deposited in the house of Sir John Lubbock and Co,, to be sold and dis. posed of in the tnarket, anti the produce appropriated for the pa3. mient of the bills previously dishenoured, andotlher ' BriLith claim.i- MaItN ;" that Admiral Jahat considered himzself as one of such claim. Iants contemplated by the Cortes. and th;at he waS a creditor to the atnount of 27,0001. for goods and -ncrchandise, which he had ship. ped for ihe use of the Government of Spain vw:hile he was Envoy. and daly authorized to do so in Great Britain; and in conclusion, I he preyed that the defendants be required to account wvith him fbr the same out of the produce of tlte inscriptions which they lhad sold by virtue of the decree of the Cortes of May, 1822, and that thev be restrained frotn disposing of any further certificates of that ioan until his claim be satisfied. A general prayer wai added, that the defendants bc required to fttrnish an accoun;t to the plaintill of the disposition andi appropriation of all ftittds of wnicti thev had become possessed tupon the sale or security of the said certificates of rIte Cortes in the year 1822. Mr. IIAttE, for tile dferfedats, said, that not7;;iths:anding the Voluminous nature of these pleadings. the cai.e rcsolved itself into a 1 Verv narrow comrass. In :he year 11121 the existing Governmtent ot Spam thotight it necessary to raise a large sum of omoney hv loani, and the usual forms of isuinig certificates. and inscribinig the amount in the book of rentes. hadTbeen performed. Agents were of course emploved to ell tiese securities to tite highest bidder in the toarke:. These concerns were after wards, with othier matters, intrusted to the agency of the house of Bernales and Co. The bill went on to state, that they hae' accepted tdraughts drawn by the jSpanish Governiment to a large amotant, and suffered others to be j dishonoured ; and that in conisequence ot the latter art, the Cortes annulled the contract, and entered into a new one, which was in. trusted to othet ha-ids, atid Sir J. Lubbock and Co. becamtn the new negotiating agents. Under these circumstances. tte tbroner relations between the patties becamne entirely altered, atid it was one thing for the plaintiff to have had a clai.m itpon Bernales and Co., at(t another to make one upon the present defendants, who had entered into the contract long aftertite arrange- ments in sehichi the plaintiff alleed himself to have been engaged. Sir John Lubbock atid Co. never had any connexion, directly or in- directly, with any of the precediug transactions, and could not in equity be mixed up with them. 'i'hey repelled the plaintiff's infer- ence that tihey were responsible to him for any previous lien which he could have enforced against Bernales and Co. It was incumbent upon a suitor in equity to show that his debt was connected with the identical pronerty wbich he alleged had got into the hands of the person from iwhom he claimed: hetween the one and the other,there must be shown to be some connexion, but here was no such thing There was, he admitted, a general direction of the Cortes, in mak. inK the new arrangement, that satisfaction should he aft}erded to the just claims of Britislh creditors; but Admiral JabIs could not te costssdered as; standing in that relationship towatda lis own Oovecnment., nor was there riny specification in the fresh arrange. ment tnade by the Cortes in the year 1822, to connect or identifv any ?reditor individualy with the house of Sir John Lubbock ar,d Co. 'lThey were therefore only bouo d to arrange the transactions of tite loan with the comnssiasioncs whto were appointed to carry it into effect, and with whioni alone they werc itunnediately required to trans- act the pecuniary part of the business. Tte plaintiff's title could only be identifie with theinscriptions entered in the vear 1821 while the loan was negotiating bv Bernales and Co. ; and Sir John LJub- bock and C9. hard at that time no connexion whatever witti the agen- cy. Nlow, then, coald they bc made parties to it in a court of equity ? The Vrct-Crnc"CLtron inqaired what was the precise lan4 guage of the direction which acconipanied the new arraneement of tlhe Cortea after the revocation of that with Bernaies and Co. ? lr. HBART.-" MBlercly that out of the produce of the new loan satisfaction should be given to those British creditors who had suf- fered by the dishonoured bills." The VICE-CIIANCELLon next inquired how the plaintiff pro- fessed to raise the question of equity 5 MIr. Cop replied-on the constructiOn ofthe direction giver by the Cortes to thenew commissioners, to apply a certain portion of the produce of the tresh certificates to the liquidation of the prLvious claimls. The VICE-XUANCELLOR-" Bult is that lirection admitted5" Mrl. AtAr.-" Certainly not. The plaintiff bas from the beirn- ning mistaken the foundation of his claim. eavers that we acrtnder the operation of the original decree, a.nd wve say we bave nothing to de with it." _ The VICE-CHANc ELLoRa-"BUthe states also, that though you act not under the original eontraet, you &ec under one substituted for it, and having reference to its provIsiotis." The fartlher argumenit was postponed, as the Vice-Chancellor had determined to rise at two o'clock. The following case preceded the above in the coame of the morning: PLUN'XETT V. CAVI:fDISH. The plaintiff in this cause was the heiress at law, and the u:tinate legatee of an strate Df Sir Wim. l,owther, which was now held by the defendant, Lord F. (Cavendish, by virtue of a recovery which he LD a co-tenant had suffered. On the part ofthe plaintiff' it wes contend- ed, that all the limitationsof Sir Wl'm. Loather's will wereatan ened, p.ad that she became ndttled as nltiar.ae legaree to the estate. anlt with ri*hts unaff'ected by the recovery which the deendant sllegetd he had suffered- The defendant by his plea denied in terms the alUe_ gatio of the plaintiff, and the Court refused the application. VICE-CuHAN CELLOR'S C(OURT. j CREDITORS OF TILE SPANlISIl OVERNMENT1 I _ __ JAA1AT V. CAM1PBELL L.UBBOCK, AND * 0.