« PreviousContinue »
handed over by the Provisional ]unta to the U.S. cruisers, and by them somewhat ignominiously conducted back to San Diego.
Her ultimate fate has yet to be decided, and International jurists, our own in particular, will watch the further development of the case with interest. The French Government at the end of May ordered the sequestration of three ships which were being built for President Balmaceda, one at Havre and two at Toulon,* but very recently they were allowed to leave. One of them, the Presidente Pinto, ran aground before she had left Toulon Harbour; another, the Presidente Errazuriz, manned with a motley crew of various nationalities, visited Penzance, and then put in at Lisbon, and after causing great trouble to the Portuguese Authorities, started for Chili.
During the progress of the Chilian Civil War there have been several cases of entry into neutral territory (with or without permission) by the combatants. Thus the Argentine Republic allowed 2,000 soldiers to cross its frontier, upon the condition of their previously submitting to be disarmed.t Peru, on one occasion, also gave a similar permission to a portion of the retreating garrison of Tacua and Arica upon a like condition, and it subsequently prevented the troops from. re-crossing the frontier.I More recently still, Col. Cadmus’s division forcibly entered and crossed Argentine territory in order to join the southern army corps.§ On another occasion the Bolivian authorities had to imprison the officers of some fugitive Presidential troops for punishing their men with the lash in Bolivian territory.||
As regards the recognition of the Congressionalists as belligerents by foreign powers, this does not appear to have yet generally taken place, notwithstanding a special application to the French Government,* and a Circular Note sent more recently to all the European Governments by the Provisional ]unta.1' Bolivia seems to be the only State which has accorded formal recognition, which it did on the 27th May.I
* Times, IS! June. 1‘ Ibid., 13th April. I Ibid., 17th April. § Ibid., 215! April. ll Ibid., 1at May.
An application on the 3rd july last to the Chancery Division for an order to restrain Messrs. Rothschilds and Baring Brothers from parting with certain funds belonging to the “ Republic of Chili,” succumbed to the preliminary objection that there was no Sovereign power in the “ Republic of Chili” at present recognised by our Government.§
A claim for compensation seems likely to arise in the case of an English ship, the Gulf of Trinidad, sunk in Caldera Harbour by a stray torpedo,|| and possibly out of the illtreatment of two English Consular officials;1i but otherwise the rights of neutrals have been tolerably well observed.
If all reports are true, the humanitarian principles enunciated by the Brussels Conference seem to have been violated by both combatants, but especially by the Balmaceda Party. The extraordinary Dictatorial powers given to President Balmaceda by his Congress read like a chapter in the later history of the Roman Republic,“ and would certainly tend to alienate European sympathy from what already appears to be the losing side. It is perhaps too late even to hope that the attempts at arbitration made by
' Times, 4th May. 1- Ibid., 11th June. I Ibid., 1st June.
§ See Times, 4th July. The report of the case is not very full, and it is diflicult to apprehend exactly the nature of the objection taken. Undoubtedly we do recognise a Republic of Chili, for we receive an accredited representative of the Republic. The real difiiculty is as to who constitutes the Sovereign power now. As Kekewich, J., said, there are two “ contending parties.”
Brazil, the United States and France, as well as by Great Britain and Germany, may prove successful.
An important principle regarding Extradition was affirmed by the Divisional Court on an application for a Habeas Corpus in the case of In re Bellencontre, L.R., 1891, 2 Q.B. 122. The extradition demand specified fifteen charges, four only of which disclosed any crime by English Law. The Court held this was sufficient to justify extradition, provided that as regards the four charges mentioned there was “ such evidence as would warrant the magistrate in committing the prisoner for trial in an English Court of justice, if what he did had been done in this country ”
(Cave, j., at p. 139).
Private International Law.
The Court of Appeal has affirmed the decision of Day, ]., in the case of Levasseur and Another v. Mason and Barry (L.R., 1891, 2 Q.B. 73) referred to in our February issue (p. I68). The remarks of Lord Esher, M.R., at p. 79, upon the general effect of a foreign Bankruptcy, are particularly useful.
Foreign Business—Ineome Tax.
In the recent case of The London Bank of Mexico and S0'nth America v. Apthorpe (60 L.]. Q.B.D. 196), Charles, ]., followed, but distinguished to some extent, the decision of the House of Lords in Colqnhoun v. Brooks, L.R. 14 App. Cas. 493.
Service of Writs against Foreign Firms, etc.
There is, as usual, quite a large number of cases on points connected with the procedure in actions by and against foreign firms.
The Court of Appeal, in the case of The Indigo C0. v. Ogilvy, L.R., 189I, 2 Ch. 31, explained its decision in Russell v. Cambefort, 23 Q.B.D. 526, more fully than it did in the less recent case of Western National Bank of New York v. Perez, Triana <5' Co. (L.R., 1891, 1 Q.B. 304, and see our February issue, p. I66). It would seem now to be clearly established that in an action against a firm, of which the constituent partners, or any of them, are foreign subjects, Ord. ix., r. I6, R.S.C., does not apply so as to make service on the firm good against individual foreign partners, whether the firm as such is properly domiciled or established in this country or not. The proper method is to obtain leave to serve out of the jurisdiction under Ord. xi. :— “ You cannot sue :1 firm, some members of which are abroad, at all events without leave ; if you can sue them at all in the firm’s name, which seems doubtful, you must at all events obtain leave” (Esher, M.R., at p. 39). In the still later case of Heineinann é3Co. v. Hale <5-Co., L.R., 1891, 2 Q.B. 83, the Court of Appeal followed its earlier decision, and elucidated the further point that a writ served here on one partner in the name of the firm was irregular, not only as against foreign partners, but also as against the English partner. The decision of Cave,]., in Lysaghtv. Clark <§'Co., L.R., 1891, 1 Q.B. 552, would thus seem to be overruled.
In Dobson v. Festi, Rasini 6- Co., L.R., 1891, 2 QB. 92, decided a few days after the last-mentioned case, the Court of Appeal directly held that Ord. ix., r. 6, did not apply to a foreign firm, so as to make a service (even with leave) on one foreign partner binding on other foreign partners. In view of these important decisions, it would now seem pretty clear that in actions against firms, English or foreign, of which any partners are out of the jurisdiction, the proper and only safe way is to serve the writ upon each partner individually, with or without leave, according to whether he is in or out of the jurisdiction. One other recent case, on somewhat the same subject, is interesting, viz., Wilding v. Bean, L.R., 1891, I Q.B. I00, in which the.Court of Appeal refused to allow substituted service on a person out of the jurisdiction in default of proof of intention to evade service.
The Position of Executors of Landlords under the
There seems to be a curious difference between the positions of Executor of a Landlord and Executor of a Tenant under the Agricultural Holdings Act. A County Court judge lately held that the expression “landlord” under the Act did not include the Executors of such landlord, though by Section 61 the expression “ tenant ” includes the Executors of such tenant. The difficulty would seem to have arisen from the fact that the Executors, in the case in question, were not persons for the time being entitled to receive the rents and profits of the holding, inasmuch as the holding had passed to a remainderman, though they, as Executors of the deceased Landlord, had paid the outgoing tenant the balance due to him under his claim to compensation for improvements. On appeal from the judge of the Wells County Court, the judges of the Divisional Court differed, Cave, j., maintaining the decision of the County Court judge, while Williams, j., looking to the intention of the Act, thought the Executors of the Landlord entitled to the order which they claimed, to