Mayor's Court.
The Times, 1824-09-15T00:00:00

An Colnsequence of an affidtavit filed in the AMayor's Court, the enor- mous sum of 378,0001., whichl lies in the hands of Lyon Abraham Gol(lsmidtand Co.,hasbeen attached. Theaffidavitwas thatofThomas Ambrose Edwards, of Surrey-street,Strand, andit stated that the Go- vernmentof thcRepul)licofC olombia wasjustly and truly indebted to l-im,and one Samuel Penfi,ld Thomas,the assignee o'Ed wards,in the sum of 378,0001. upon two sets of bills of exchange drawn by him, and accepted by Don lIewis Lopez AMendez, deputy of the Govern- nent of Venezuela, now calling itself the Government of Colomb-. in the name and on behalf of that Government; that the bills we a made payable at a certain day now past, to the order of James I.- dovic Grant, and by him endorsed to Edwards, who was lately d* charged as an insolvent debtor, and that no ofrer had bcen-madc to pay the saidl sum of 378,0001.. or any part thereof, in any note or notes of the Governor and Comp;ny of the Bank of England. Y'esterday, before the RECORDER, Air. BARNARD, one of the Citv Counsel, rose to move the Court to set aside the action alto- getier, as one wholly incapable of being maintained upon any prin- ciple of common law or common sense-as a thing, in fact, amounting to a a'mplete nullity. The firm of Goldsmidt and Co. were sum lI -as the garnishees in a case whlich represented the Colombian Goven.- mrent as the defendant. ft was, he believed, the first time that ever the Government of any country was made party to a suit of any kind; andl it was still mere extraor(linary that a (;overnment should be ma4e a party to a uersonal action of debt. In every proceeding for the recovery of (lebt, eaclh step was in. persona; when a capias was to be mtade, it could not be made but in persona: the pre c -s for comr.lling an appearance wri inevitably subject to a simile- fonr.. In the casc of a corporation, which might be considered some- what analozous, the attorney for that corporation must be sued, and not the bonty itself. But, to gue a Government for money, struck him as ens of the most palpable absurdities by which a commercigl pcople could be deceived. What did government mean but the effect prcduced by the operation of the functions of the governers to- wards the governed ? The RECOtDER.-- You certainly bave stated enough to show that you are entitled to a rule to show cause." Air. BARNARD said the object of his motion was to have the whole psaceedings set aside as a nullity, and he trusted that the re- sult of his application would have a tendency to put down the verv injurious practic- which so materially prejudiced commercial deal- ing~s-the practice of resorting to the Mayor's Coturt, in order to be supplied with a power to be exercised in jobbing in the stocks. It w ould be most desirable that the pereon who presided in the 5M ayor's C ourt should express his opinion as to theconsequenceslikely to arise ,:om suing OUt attachmenlts when the parties who esserted their claim never entertained the most distant idea of prosecuting it to a termination. If the Recorder would publicly declare the mischiefs arising from that practice, confidence woulti be restored in mercar.- tile relations, and the franchises of the citizens of Lon(lon would not be.so subject to violation. He (Mr. Barnard) would not say whether the action had been entered inadvertently, or whether the whole proceedings were a mere pretence, for the purpose of serving the gambling adventurers on the Stock Exchange. The process, howvever, could not hiave been iss,ued out without the privity of eume of the officet a of the AMayor's Court, who of course were in some de- gree chargeable witlh the fact of attaching where there could be no legal redress. c The RECO.RDER said he did net know that he could set aside the action itself, but he tlhought it would fully answer the learnel coun- sel's view to put an end to the attachment which certainly did not apncar to the Court to be at all maintainable. Air. BARNARD said he founded his motion upon the high ground of the mere nonsense of suing a Govetiment for a sum of money. Such a thing had never been heard of before; and the rule for whichi he applied ought, lie submitted, to be made abselute at onee 'iThe toleration of sucit a practice rs that to which he hal alluded wovl( do immense injury. He would ask any man iu his senses, whether le believed that either the plaintiff or any one else ever entertained an idea of making a direct or legal use of the attachmenlt against the Colomnbian Government ? When the ease waS put into his hands, it imniediately occurrc:l to him that the measure had been taken for the purpose of affecting the Cdlombian stock in the market. The slu. of 378,( ,31. had been now two months locked up, and it was taken care that the attachment should be sued out on the 14th of Jtlly, the day preceding the great settling day, and the fact was no- tified in all the papers. It was done, tco,under eircumstances which rende1cd it irnpoisible to proc?ed fbrthwith for the removal of the process. To say that the sfock sufferel nro depreciation in conse. quence of the attachment, would be to talk absurdly,, and no one couldI doubt that if the Colombian Government wanted the money thus locked up to meet the exigencies of theState, and could not get it, they would resort to ansther loan, and necessarily dlepreciate the prire of the Colombian stock then it the market. The holders of the stock mutst of cotirse be affiected, and the Court woald say whie- tiher, in a country wherc regularity and punctuality of' commercial transactions were so positively n'cessary, a process of such a de- scription, without the slightest stability in law, should be permitted, particularly under circumstances which made it the instrament of extensive public mischief. Tihe RECORIBER said, he certainly was of opinion that conimon bail should be filcil under the circumistances stated. It was, indeed, a most extraordinary sort of proceeding to sue a Government. The plaintiff might as well sue a whote nation. How such an idea as that of compelling a Government to pay a debt to alt individual by such a process couldI enter into any man's btead, he could not guess. He sliould direct that common bail be filed, and that a rule be graitted to shiow cause why all the prooeedings should not be set aside. This was accordingly done. The attachment has been, by this determinationi of the Court, rendered null and void. WAr/Oro V. THE GOVERNSIENT OF COLOMIB3A. AMr. iIAnRNAID applied for the same rule in ttis case. The plain. stied Otnt an attachment against Messrs. Goldschmnidt and Co., upon an affidavit, statin)g that Simon Bolivar and others, styling and calling themselves the (overmnent of the Republic of Colombia, owedl him tme sum of 17,9651,. 4s. 6.1., the balance due for money paid by him for that Government, aitd also for work dolle for that G;overnment. arid for their use, antd by their direption that all this hail been sanictioned, approved, and agreed to'bv Simen Bolivar, on behalf ot himself as C(hief, 'and on behalf generally of the Goverm. ment, anti thatSimFion Bolivar, and the otliers, were thi persons call. ing thiemiselves, and the individuals coltstituting, that Government. Tt was not stated, Alr. Barnard said, that those persons were the in- dlividuals forming the Government at the ti,me the money was said to have been lent. Republics more frequently varied titat 'any other form of governmient, and it would, indeed, be extraordinary if one set of governors were to pay fr what had been contracted by an>' ot.er. B3ut supposing them tO be lhable, 1lw wvas a capiafr to reach them, and bring tie!n over? WYithout any further commsent, he moved for an order similar to that granted in the last case. lr. BOLLAND, for the plaintiff, argued that this case was mate- riallytifferetit from the forimer- lIe admitted, at once, that the process againist the Governmnent of Clolombia was absurd, and that aniy measure of the kind alopted with a stck-jobbine view was exceedingly culpable and mischiievous. But f41r. Witon's claim wias untoucheal by any thing that had been said. The attach- iment wasagainst the property of Bolivar and theothers styling theiim- selves the Government of Colombia. The questdoit, therefore, was, whether a set of persons starting in a partnership in a political con- cernt, were to come here and contract ebts under the name of the (Govermitent of Colombia, without incurring any legal responsibility; -whether a bandl of adventurers were to raise a large sum of mzolley, anti then to-shiekl themselves from the conseqitences of not paying, by calling themselves a state. The Lord Chlancellor had some time ago ret hetl to recognize Colomnbia as a state. In fact, the affitdavit proved that Bolivar'sm money was subject to the attachimeiit whici had been suei out. If not, metn were to be considered as justified in coming to this cotntry antd making plueder of tlc property of the natives, who were thus left without the chance of rctnibvithoei. The RECORDER said, that the motion is tilis ease mlist also succeed. The averment stated that Mr *Valton lent the money to 13olivar ani thic otiers as the dovernment of Colombia. 'it was not averredl who the Government were; it was mergly said that Bolivar. antid e others styletl theitrelves the Governurent. Comnnmon bail wa3 also ordered tobe filet its this case, and a rule to show cause wlty tIhe whole proceedings shoald not be setaside granted, MAYOR'S COURT. ATTACHIMIENT UPON THE PROPERTY OF THE COLOMBIAN GOVEIVNMIENXT. _