time.
(6)
Mr.
his petition of appeal many proceedings necessary to a just decision which I pointed out at the Hayllar, Q.C., showed cause against the same. The latter argued that the King of Annam was a Sovereign Prince, and that on the face of the record there were sufficient admissions of the Sovereignty to justify the Court in setting aside the Writs of October 1878 and April 1874 and awarding costs and damages to the defendant. The Court adjourned as usual, and after the adjournment the argument
6-The petition also appears to me to be faulty in its prayer. It asked for an order giving damages and costs, an order which must have been utterly inconsistent with the order made on the motion of the defendant himself to set down the cause to be heard, and actually in due course transferred to the hearing paper, an order which the plaintiff had accepted and which must have been proceeded with, and upon which the plaintiffs asked for a commission to examine a witness in France.
For all or some or one of these reasons I am of opinion that the petition must be dismissed, and with costs.
JUDGMENT BY MR. JUSTICE SNOWDEN.
Mr. Justice Snowden then read the following judgment:
This is an appeal against an order made by me in the course of this suit on May 3rd, 1875.
I have nothing to contribute to the very exhaustive account his Lordship has drawn up of this singular case except a narrative of the facts for which I am personally responsible. On a careful reconsideration of the various elements in this case, the reasons on which the order of May 3rd were made seem good, and I quite concur in the additional arguments provided by the Chief Justice.
The Annamese interested in the case being present, suggestions for an arrangement were once more thrown out by the Court.
Having observed that Mr. Landstein in his affidavit stated that the Dang Wee is now worth fully $12,000, and as that was all he could expect to make out of the vessel under any circumstances, I asked Mr. Hayllar whether, on good security to the amount of $15,000 being given, he would consent to the Court releasing the Dang Wee. He at once consented, and on the Court calling up Paul Nguen Dac Hau (the Annamese merchant in whose transactions with Landstein these proceedings originated), he expressed his willingness to provide security for that amount.
He named Lai Duc, the Minister of the King, as his security. The latter, on being questioned, said that he was willing to become security. That the King of Annam had seized property of Paul Ngueu Duc Hau worth $20,000 and property of his, in the hands of two other parties to the value of $10,000 each. After some discussion, the terms were altered, and Paul Nguen Duc Hau offered or agreed to enter into a Bond to pay to the plaintiff $60,000, and Lai Duc consented to become his surety for that amount.
It should here be remarked that Paul Nguen Duc Hau reiterated his assertion that the debt was his and not the King's. As Paul Nguen Duc Hau admitted the debt to Messrs. Landstein, and was ready to give security for the payment of $60,000, and Mr. Hayllar consented to accept these terms, it seemed to me most desirable that on the execution of the Bond, the Dang Wee, the great bone of contention, should be released.
The learned Attorney-General declined to take any part in the arrangement and protested against it, claiming to reserve a demand for costs and damages.
There was a slight difference of opinion between the Chief Justice and myself. His Lordship felt so strongly that the arrangement ought to be a final settlement and conclusion of this protracted litigation that he declined to be a party to any arrangement falling short of that.
A few days before, an order had been obtained by the defendant, on consent of the plaintiff's counsel, that the cause should be set down on the hearing paper, and it was accordingly transferred to that paper from the hearing list, a day remaining to be fixed. In my opinion, there was an implied undertaking with the Court and with the other side to proceed to trial and to interpose no vexatious delay.
By arrangement, the three summonses to which I have referred came on for hearing together before the full Court on April 16th.
The 3rd summons was first heard, its subject
(7)
General apply for costs afterwards if he thought summonses on the part of the plaintiff, one to The Chief Justice retained the right to do so. obtain a commission to examine Mr. Schwever, and a second to compel the defendant to give security for costs; on the part of the defendant, the summons in question, and its terms, were disapproved; but seeing that the parties desired to perfect the compromise, he left the Bench, placing in my hands the future conduct of the proceedings then before the Court.
Although he felt unable personally to sanction it, His Lordship, by leaving the Bench, abstained from obstructing a compromise. By the proposed arrangement, the primary object of the summons, the release of the Dang Wee, would be obtained as the result of a compromise between the parties entering into it.
The Chief Justice having left the Court, I called up the Annamese and caused the interpreter to explain to them in the clearest way what the terms of the proposed arrangements were, and told them that if the Bond was executed and security given as promised, the Court would restore the Dang Wee to their possession. I then adjourned the further hearing for one week to April 23rd. On that day, all the parties appeared before me in Court, the learned Attorney General being present all the time, but stating "that he did not then appear." The Bond which had been prepared by the solicitors for the King of Annam was produced and approved of by Mr. Hayllar for the plaintiff, and after being once more explained to the Annamese, who entirely understood and assented to the terms, it was executed by Paul Nguen Duc Hau as principal and Lai Duc as surety, who affixed his official seal.
The prayer of the Petition is that the said summons may be re-heard and that the full Court will decide as to its jurisdiction in the matter of the suit, and award to the Petitioner all costs and charges incurred by him in relation to this suit together with such damages as the Court may think fit to award on account of this suit and the two writs of attachment.
I then signed an order to the Sheriff to release the ship. It was taken possession of by Lai Duc at once, and the King of Annam's flag was hoisted.
As soon as the order had been signed, the Attorney General applied to me to hear the adjourned argument on the summons of April 14th, and I adjourned the further hearing to May 3rd.
The argument of the learned Attorney General occupied the greater part of the sitting of the Court during two days, May 13th and 14th, and certain written arguments, which had been prepared by Mr. Kingsmill when acting as Counsel for the defendant and by Mr. Hayllar early in the suit, were also adopted.
I will only say that those very learned and complete arguments, and the very able argument addressed to the Court by the learned Attorney-General, would have made a greater impression on my mind at an earlier stage of the case.
As to the latter argument, I may remark that whilst it dealt very ably and fully with the question of the immunity of Sovereign Princes from the action of foreign tribunals in case of debts, and of the King of Annam as one, it very skilfully avoided handling the real issues in the case—viz: whether, though a Sovereign Prince, the King had not incurred liabilities to Messrs. Landstein as a private trader, and whether he had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court.
On May 3rd, I again sat alone. The Attorney General objected that a single judge ought not to hear the adjourned summons. I held that one Judge was sufficient under the provisions of the Code, and the argument proceeded under protest.
The learned Attorney General then applied to the Court to decide as to its jurisdiction, and to award costs to defendant under sub-section 4 of section 82 of the Code, and to dissolve the two writs of attachment.
Mr. Hayllar objected that the ship, the subject matter of the suit, was now out of the jurisdiction of the Court, and security for a sum of money had been accepted, and that the suit was practically at an end.
After hearing the arguments on both sides, I made an order dismissing the summons and all the outstanding summonses, notices, and motions.
At this time, there were outstanding and awaiting the decision of the Court, two summonses on the part of the plaintiff, one to obtain a commission to examine Mr. Schwever, and a second to compel the defendant to give security for costs.
The question of how far the King is a private trader could not be decided without a trial; and Mr. Hayllar showed with unanswerable force that the defendant had submitted over and over again to the jurisdiction of the Court.
During the course of the argument, the Court strongly urged the learned Attorney General to detach the question of Jurisdiction from the question of the soundness of the order of May
127
time.
(6)
Mr.
bis petition of appeal many proceedings necess. matter being decisive of the other two, ary to a just decision which I pointed out at the Hayllar, Q.C., showed cause against the sam
mous, and the learned Attorney General was heard in support. The latter argued that the King of Annam was a Hovereign Prince, and that on the face of the record there were suffi- cient admissions of the Sovereignty to justify the Court in setting aside the Writs of October 1578 and April 1874 and awarding costs and damages to the defendant. The Court adjourned as usual, and after the adjournment the argn
6-The petition also appears to me to be faulty us to its prayer. It asked for an order giving damages and costs, an order which must have been utterly inconsistent with the order made on the motion of the defendant himself to set down the cause to be heard, and actually in due course transferred to the bearing paper, an order which the plaintiff bad accepted and which mast have been proceeded with, and upon whichment was resumed. the plaintiffs asked for a commission to examine a witness in France.
For all or some or one of these reasons I am of opinion that the petition must be dismissed. and with costa.
JUDGMENT BY MR. JUSTICE SNOWDEN. Mr. Justice Suowden then read the following judgment:
This is an appeal against an order mande by me in the course of this suit ou May 3rd, 1875
I have nothing to contribute to the very ex- haustive account his Lordship bas drawn up of this singular case except a narrative of the facts for which I aun personally responsible. On a careful reconsideration of the varions elements in his case, the reasons on which the order of May 3rd were made seam good, and I quite concur in the additional arguments provided by
the Chief Justice.
The Annamese interested in the case being present, suggestions for an arrangement were once more thrown out by the Court,
Having observed that Mr. Landstein in his affidavit stated that the Dang Wee is now worth Fouly $12,000, and as that was all he could expect to make out of the vessel ander any cirioumstances, I asked Mr. Hayller whether, on good security to the amount of $15,000 being given, he would consent to the Court releasing the Dang Wee. He at once consented, and on the Court calling up Paul Nguen Dac Hau (the Annamese merch int in whose trans- actions with Landstein these proceedings originated), he expressed bis willingness to provide security for that amount.
He named Lai Duc the Minister of the King as his security. The latter on being questioned said that he was willing to become security. That the King of Annam had seized property The primary proceedings in this suit took of Paul Ngueu Duc Hau worth $20,000 and place about 18 months before my arrival in the property of his, ne I understood, in the hands Colony, and I believe that I first took part in of two other parties to the value of $10,000 sitting with His Lordship to hear two sum.each, After some discussion the terma were mouses dated April 14th 1874; one calling on the altered, and Paul Neuen Due Hau offered or defendent to show cause why be should not be agreed to enter into a Bond to pay to the restrained from future proceedings until he had plaintiff $60,000 and Lai Duo consented to given security for costs, and the second calling become bis surety for that amount. on defendant to show cause why a commission It should here be remarked that Pani Nguen should not issue for the examination of Eugene Duo Hau reiterated his assertion that the debt. Schwever resident at Paris; the third was a was his and not the King's. As Paul Nguen Duc summons of a later date issued on the part of the Hau admitted the debt to Mesara. Landstein, defendant calling on the plantiff to show cause and was ready to give security for the payment why the Court should not decide as to its jurés | of $60,000 and Mr. Hayllar consented to accept diction in the matter of this sunt, and why the these terms, it seemed to me most desirable that Writs of Attachioeut dated October 14th, 1873, on the execution of the Bood the Dang Wee, the and April 14th, 1874, should not be set aside, greit bone of contention, should be released. and why the Court should not award to the The learned Attorney-General declined to defendant and the plantiff pay to the defendant take any part in the arrangement, and protest- all coets and charges incurred by the defendant ed against it, claiming to reserve a demand for in relation to this suit, together with snob costs and damages. there was a slight differ. damages as toe Court wight award on account ence of opinion between the Chief Justice and of this suit and the two said Writs of Attach-myself. His Lordship felt so strongly that the arrangement ought to be a fin il settlement and
ment.
A few days before au order had been obtained conclusion of this protracted litigation, that he by the defendant, on consent of the plaintiff's declined to be a party to any arrangement fal- counsel, that the cause should be set down onling short of that. the hearing paper, and it was accordingly trans.
I quite coincided in the opinion that any ferred to that paper from the hearing list, a day settlement should be a final settlement, but only remaining to be fixed. In my opinionasmuch as the arrangement was in course of there was an implied undertaking with the being made between the plaintiff and Paul Court and with the other side to proceed to trial Nguen Due Hau, personally, and as the and to interpose no vexatious delay.
learned counsel for the King declined to be a party to it, whilst Lai Duc who instructed him became the security in his official capacity, it seemed to me that it would be better to get rid of the Dang Wee at allevents and let the Attorney
By arrangement the three summonses to which I have referred, came on for hearing to- gether before the full Court on April 16th.
The 3rd summons was first heard, its subject
( 7 )
General apply for costs afterwards if he thought summonses on the part of the plaintiff, one to The Chief Justice retained obtain a commission to examine Mr. Schwever, right to do so. the very strong opinion he had expressed and a second to compel the defendant to give declared that he would not take a part in a com- security for costs; on the part of the promise, of which, not being defined in defendant, the summons in question, and its terms, be disapproved; but seeing that a motion filed dated April 29th to the same the parties desired to perfect the compromise effect, and there was an order of the Court that be left the Bench, placing in my bands the suit should be put down for hearing, the future conduct of the proceedings then granted on the application of the learned before the Court,
Although he felt an- Attorney-General, and by consent of Me. Hayl- able personally to sanction it, His Lordship lar, the spirit of which order had never been by leaving the Bench abstained from obstruct practically acted on. ing a compromise. By the proposed arrange. A petition of appeal against this order was ment the primary object of the summons, the lodged and came on for hearing before the fall release of the Dang Wee, would be obtained as Court on May 13th. The grounds are set out the result of a compromise between the parties in the petition. The facta connected with the entering into it.
bearing of the summons of April 12th as before The Chief Justice having left the Court I narrated are all set out as well as the order called up the Annamese and caused the inter-made by me May 3rd. preter to explain to them in the clearest way The petitioner complains that be is aggrieved what the terms of the proposed arrangements by that order, und alleges that the same is were, and told them that if the Bond was erroneous as far as it orders that the aummons executed and security given as promised, the of the defendant of the 12th April should be Court would restore the Dang Wee to their dismissed. possession. I then adjourned the farther It states that the appeal is necessary by hearing for one week to April 23rd. On that reason of the presence of only one judge at day all the parties appeared before me in Court, part of the hearing and the making of the the learned Attorney General being present all said order. the time, but stating "that he did not then ap pear." The Bond which bad been prepared by be solicitors for the King of Annum was pro. duced and approved of by Mr. Hayllar for the plaintiff, and after being once more explained to the Annamese who entirely understood and assented to the terms, it was executed by Paul Nguen Duo Hau as principal and Lai Due as surety, who affixed his official soul.
harbor for Annam,
The prayer of the Petition is that the said summons may be re-heard and that the full Court will decide as to its jurisdiction in the matter of the suit, and award to the Petitioner all costs and charges incurred by him in rela tion to this suit together with such damages as the Court may think it to award on account of this auit and the two writs of attachment. I then signed an order to the Sheriff to ral occupied the greater part of the sitting of The argument of the learned Attorney Gene- release the ship. It was taken possession of by the Coart during two days, May 13th and lith, Lai Duc at once and the King of Aunam's flag and certain written arguments, which had been boisted. This source of such protracted and prepared by Mr. Kingsmill when acting as intricate litigation has since left Hongkong Counsel for the defendant and by Mr. Hayllar
As soon as the order had early in the suit, were also adopted. been signed, the Attorney General applied to I will only say that those very learned and me to bear the adjourned argument ou the complete arguments, and the very able argu- summons of April the 14th, and I adjourned the ment addressed to the Court by the learned further hearing to May 3rd.
impression on my mind at an earlier stage of the Attorney-General, would have made a greater case. As to the latter argument I may remark that whilst it dealt very ably and fully with the question of the immunity of Sovereign Princes from the action of foreign tribunals in case of debts, and of the King of Annam as one, it very skilfully avoided handling the real issues in the case--viz: whether though a Sovereign Prince, the King bad not incurred liabilities to to Messrs, Landstein as a private trader, and whether be had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court.
On May 3rd I again sat alone. The Attorney General objected that a single judge ought not to bear the adjourned sammous. I beld that one Judge was sufficient under the provisions of the Code, and the argument proceeded under protest,
The learned Attorney General then applied to the Court to decide as to its jurisdiction, and to award costs to defendant under sub-section 4 of section 82 of the Code, and to dissolve the two writs of attachment, Mr. Hayllar objected that the ship, the subject matter of the suit, was now out of the jurisdiction of the Court, and security for a sum of money had been ac cepted, and that the suit was practically at au sad.
After hearing the arguments on both sides, I made an order dismissing the summons and all the outstanding summonses, notices, and mo tione.
At this time, there were outstanding and awaiting the decision of the Court, two
The question of how far the king is a private trader could not be decided without a trial; and Mr. Hayllar showed with unanswerable force that the defendant bad submitted over and over again to the jurisdiction of the Court.
During the course of the argument the Court strongly urged the learned Attorney General to detach the question of Jurisdiction from the question of the soundness of the order of May
127
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.