60
Authorities on the non-recognition of penal laws of a foreign
country.
Huntington v. Attrill 180 8 A.C. 150
Folliote v. Ogdin, 1 H.B1. 124
and other cases cited in Pigott's "Foreign
Judgments," Vol.I, page 88 et seq.
In order to preserve the Defendant's rights in the Court
of the case going to the Privy Council, Counsel for defendant
requests that the following may appear on the Judge's notes.
"The Defendant's motion to dismiss the action as
"frivolous and vexations was mad returnable before the
"date on which the appeal from the Chief Justice's decision
"in Chambers under Ordinance No. 1 of 1851 would be due for
"hearing: the intention being to ask the Gourt to hear
"the two motions together. One of the grounds on which
"the motion to dismiss the action was that it came within
"the rule laid down in Logan's case; and it was Counsel's
"intention to trial the appeal from the Chief Justice's
# decision as a natural corollary, thus making the appeal
"subordinate to the motion. Counsel would then have been
"certified to rely in the appeal on the evidence adduced
"and arguments advanced on the motion: more especially in
"regard to the impossibility of this defendant appearing
"before the Canton Court if the action had been brought
"against him there.
"The Court declined to take the two motions together,
"and the Plaintiffs not being ready with their affidavits
"in reply to the defendant's affidavit, the motion to
"dismiss the action was adjourned, and the appeal came on
"for hearing. The priority of the motion to diamiss was
"therefore lost."