« ForrigeFortsett »
reader's judgment.† We considered that the abolition of arrest as an ordinary incident of civil process, coupled with the very special nature of the facts, had rendered the case obsolete.
Tattersall v. Groote, 2 B. & P. 131, is distinguished by Stirling, J., in Belfield v. Bourne, '94, 1 Ch. 521, 8 R. Feb. 115, and in the course of the learned Judge's observations a sufficient account of the case is given : '94, 1 Ch. at pp. 525—6, 8 R. Feb. at pp. 118—9. The tenor of those observations is that, so far as consistent with later authorities, Tattersall v. Groote is superseded by them, and that at all events it is of no general importance in England since the Partnership Act, 1890.
1808. Monday, Alay 23.
† MARSHALL I. CRITICO. was before residing here, had been (9 East, 447–448.)
appointed in his place; but the One who had been appointed defendant had then received no Consul General from the Porte, official notification of his dismissal, but was dismissed several months and continued in fact to exercise before from his employment, and his office here until after the arrest. another person resident here ap
And he contended that the defendpointed in his room, is not at any rate privileged from arrest, though ant's privilege did not cease until at the time of the arrest he had not
notification at least of his dismissal, received any official notification of and reasonable time to depart the his dismissal, or of the appoint- kingdom if he thought fit. It did ment of the other.
not however appear that he had BURROUGH moved to discharge had any intention of departing. the defendant from an arrest, on filing common bail, on the ground LORD ELLENBOROUGH, Ch. J.: of his privilege, under the stat. 7 This is not a privilege of the Ann. c. 12, as being consul general person, but of the state which he from the Porte, and invested with represents. And that state having a superintending authority over some months before devested him the Turkish consuls in the differ- of the character in which he claims ent sea-port towns, and not an the privilege, and appointed another ordinary consul or agent for com. person here to exercise it, there is mercial purposes; in which respect no just reason why the defendant he distinguished this from Barbuits should not be subject to process as case. But he also stated from other persons ; nor for the state, the affidavit, that some months by which he had been so dismissed previous to the arrest, the defend- from his employment, to take ant had in fact been dismissed offence at his arrest. from his employment, and another person of the name of Natali, who Per CURIAM: Motion denied.
| Cas. temp. Talb. 281, and vide Lord Mansfield's account of the same case in Triquet y. Bath, 3 Burr. 1480—1.
In re Gasquoine, '94, 1 Ch. 470, contains, in Lord Justice Lindley's judgment, at p. 476, a citation from a judgment delivered by Lord Cottenham in 1837, which cites Powell v. Evans, 5 Ves. 839. This by no means shows that Lord Justice Lindley would himself have thought it worth while to cite Powell v. Evans at this day. The point for which it is cited has long been elementary, and the later case of Tebbs v. Carpenter, 1 Madd. 290, cited in the same passage, will appear in due course in the Revised Reports. Then in Mayfair Property Co. v. Johnston, '94, 1 Ch. 508, 514, North, J., went through a series of old cases on partition, and mentioned among them Turner v. Morgan, 8 Ves. 143, and Baring v. Nash, 1 V. & B. 551, which were deliberately omitted from the Revised Reports as having no importance for modern practice. Neither case appears to have been used in the argument, and we see no reason to alter our opinion. We have always professed, nay insisted, that nothing short of the old reports at large will suffice for the complete historical investigation of any branch of English law. But such investigation is only in the rarest cases a needful or desirable object for the practising lawyer. Gillaume v. Adderley, 15 Ves. 384, a case on the construction of special words in a will, is cited by the same Judge in Re Pratt, '94, 1 Ch. 491, 495,
only to be pronounced irrelevant. It is not referred to by Jarman.
We take this opportunity to desire the learned reader to note on Wilkinson v. Adam, 12 R. R. 255, i V. & B. 422, that the decision was affirmed by the House of Lords upon appeal (1823) 12 Price, 470. The opinion of the Judges in attendance was taken without hearing the rospondents, and was unanimous : and the House affirmed the decree without any further reasons being given.