Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

King of the Two Sicilies v Willcox and Others

State Trials Cited authorities 21 Cited in 1 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date31 January 1851
Date31 January 1851
CourtState Trial Proceedings
2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 92. Privy Council Appeals Act
3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 41. The Judicial Committee Act, 1833
8 & 9 Vict. c. 89. Registering of British Vessels
KING OF THE TWO SICILIES v. WILLCOX AND OTHERS. PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY BEFORE SHADWELL, V.C., ON DEMURRERS TO A BILL IN EQUITY, JANUARY 28TH AND FEBRUARY 7TH, 1850, AND APRIL 23RD AND MAY 24TH, 1850 ; AND BEFORE LORD CB,ANWORT If, V.C., ON OBJECTION TO THE DEFENDANTS” ANSWERS, JANUARY 31, 1851. (Reported in 1 Sim. N.S., 332, 301; 19 L.J. Ch. 202 ; 20 L.J. Ch. 417 ; 14 Jur. 163, 751 ; 15 Jur. 214.) The King of the Two Sicilies filed a bill in Chancery, alleging that during a rebellion in Sicily (a) the revolutionary government seized upon his treasure, and remitted part of it to agents in this country for the purchase of steamships ; that a steamship was purchased accordingly from the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company, and registered in the names of British subjects who were alleged to be trustees for the agents of the revolutionary government. The bill prayed that the vessel, which was still in the port of London, should be delivered up to the plaintiff, whose authority had been restored, and for an injunction. 1. Foreign Sovereign Rebellion Right to follow property.(b) Held by SHADWELL, V.C. A foreign sovereign has the right to follow in this country property which has been abstracted from his treasury by rebellious subjects, and it is not necessary to make the members of the usurping government parties. 2, Discovery Production of documents Corporation Agents Penalties abroad. Held by SHADWELL, V.C.- The defendants, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company, could not refuse to produce documents on the ground that they might expose themselves to proceedings under the Foreign Enlistment Act, 59 Geo. 3. c. 69.,(c) a corporation not being liable to indictment under that statute. Held by Lord CRANWORTH, V.C.(d) The defendants, the agents of the revolutionary government in this country, could not refuse to produce documents on the ground that their principals were not before the Court, because, the revolutionary government having come to an end, they had either ceased to be agents or had become the agents of the plaintiff ; nor could they refuse, because the production of the documents might expose their principals or themselves to penalties in a foreign country.(e) (a) See Reg. v. Granatelli, above, p. 979, and the references there given. (h) See United States of America v. Prioleau, 2 Hem. & Mil. 559, 25 L.J. Ch. N.S. 7 ; United Stales of America v. McRae, L.R. 8 Eq. 69. (c) Rep. 33 & 34 Vict. c. 90., the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, q.v. (d) SHADWELL, V.C., died August 10, 1850, and was succeeded by Rotaut, B., who was raised to the peerage as Lord Cranworth. (e) But see United States of Americo v. McRae, L.R. 4 Eq. 327, 3 Ch. 84. This was a petition that the defendants might be decreed to deliver up the steamship Bornb2y, purchased from the Peninsular and Oriental Swam Packet Company on behalf of the insurrectionary government in Sicily in 1849. The bill stated at length, that the plaintiff was the King of the Two Sicilies, and entitled in right of his sovereignty to the whole revenue of the kingdom and its administration. That early in 1848 certain of his subjects usurped his authority in Palermo, and established there a species of government under the title of " the Government of Sicily " " the Sicilian Government," and " the Executive Power," and uulawFully assumed the administration and direction of the affairs at Sicily, and continued to exercise the same until the month of April 1849. That such usurping government seized the royal public treasure of the plaintiff in Palermo and took possession of all the moneys in the Treasury, and assumed to appoint ministers of finance, foreign affairs, corn. merce, &c., who assumed the management of those departments. That the persons so assuming to act as ministers appointed Prince Granule/Li and Louis Scalia their agents in England ; and that as such agents the latter entered into a contract for the purchase of two steam vessels, one the Vettis, nearly completed, for 45,0001., and the other the 1051] King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox and otheps, 1850-51. [1052 Bombay. then being built for the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company, for 60.0001. ; that the contract (set out), which bore date the 1st of July 1848, was signed by the defendant Charles Wellington Howell, secretary of the company, on their behalf, and by the defendants Granatelli and Scalia, and by one of its terms was subject to ratification by " the Sicilian Government." That the agreement was ratified by the usurping government, who applied divers sums of the plaintiff”s revenues beine. monies paid into his royal public treasury at Palermo in purchasing hills which they remitted to the defendants Granatelli and Scalia in England for the purchase of the said steamships, and that the purchase money was duly paid to the defendants, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company, the vendors, who knew how the money was obtained. That the Vectis was delivered to Granatelli and Scalia in 1849, and by them sent beyond the seas. That the Bombay was still in the port of London, and had remained in the possession of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Packet Company until May 1849. That in April 1849 the plaintiff”s lawful authority was re-established in Sicily, and he was entitled to have the Bombay delivered up to him. That after Granatelli and Scalia had made the purchase, they and their legal advisers formed a scheme and design (which the other defendants assisted them in endeavouring to carry into effect) of availing themselves of the provisions of the Act for the registering of British vessels for a purpose contrary to the policy of such Act, and in such manner as to defeat the just rights of the plaintiff, and to benefit the said Granatelli and Scalia. That in pursuance of such scheme they requested the company, immediately the Bombay was sufficiently advanced, to have it registered in the name of the company, although they had then ceased to be the real owners. That this was accordingly done, and that on the 16th of May 1849, at the request of the said Granatelli and Scalia, the company executed a bill of sale of thirty-two sixty-fourth shares of the ships to the defendant Brodie Willcox, described as a ship-owner, and of twelve sixty-fourth shares to the defendant John Moody, also described as a ship-owner ; and of the remaining twenty sixty-fourth shares thereof to George Herring, ship-broker. That Willcox. Moody, and Herring had not, in fact, purchased the said ship nor any shares thereof from the company, but the ship was, in truth, purchased from the company by Granatelli and Scalia by means of money belonging to the plaintiff as aforesaid. That the said Willcox, Moody, and Herring never gave any consideration for such bill of sale, but were known by the said company to he mere trustees of Granatelli and Scalia. That in fact B. Willcox was not a ship-owner, but a clerk in the employ of the company, and the attesting witness to the contract of July 1848, and that J. Moody had never been a ship-owner, but was employed in the command of vessels, and was engaged by Granatelli and Scalia, on behalf of the usurping government, to take the command of the Bombay ; and that George Herring was employed by Granatelli and Scalia as a ship-broker in relation to the same ship. That the said George Herring subsequently, on June 17th, executed a bill of sale conveying the shares standing in his name to the said B. Willcox, but without receiving any consideration; that the registration of these bills of sale was purposely delayed until November 26th and 27th, and that on November ”29th the plaintiffs agents first discovered in whose possession the Bombay was from May 16th to November 28th. The said Willcox and Moody, having now the control over her, intended, unless restrained by the Court, to send her away without the plaintiff”s consent from England to some parts beyond the seas, and not in the dominions of the plaintiff; and that they also intended to execute some bill of sale, or other disposition thereof, in favour of some person unknown to the plaintiff, without giving such person notice of the plaintiff”s claim thereto. That the said ship having, before the same was so far completed that she could be registered, ceased to belong to the company, and never having since a time anterior to the registry thereof belonged to any person being a subject of Great Britain or otherwise entitled to the benefit of the Act for the registry of British vessels, the registration thereof, and the entry of the bilis of sale, were acts in fraud of the provisions of the said Act of Parliament, and in violation of the just rights of the plaintiff, whose moneys had been invested in the purchase of such ships. The bill charged that the defendants had in their possession the before-mentioned contract, and divers letters and communications which had passed in e. lation thereto, and divers deeds, doenments, books, accounts, letters, &c. rela. ting thereto, and that, if the same were produced, the truth of the matters aforesaid would appear. The bill prayed that the defendants might be decreed to deliver the said steam-ship, the Bombay, to the plaintiff ; and that in the meantime the defendants might be restrained by in- 1053] King of the Two &cities v. junction from delivering the said steamship to any other person or persons without the consent of the plaintiff, and from causing or permitting the same to be taken on of England, and from making any preparation for so doing, and from parting with the possession or control thereof without the plaintiff”s consent, and from making and executing or causing to be registered any bill of sale or other disposition thereof, and from doing and suffering to be done any other act affecting the same ship...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State (Magee) v O'Rourke
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 31 July 1971
    ...... us to two cases which are cited in Cross on Evidence (2nd Ed.):— King of the Two Sicilies v. Willcox 5 and United States v. McRae 6 At p. 232 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT