DEM ETRIUS DE WUTZ againat HENDRICKS. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOVEMBER 10TH, 1824, IN AN ACTION OF TROYER. LEGALITY OF A LOAN IN ENGLAND TO ASSIST AN INSURRECTION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT OF A FOREIGN STATE AT PEACE WITH ENGLAND. (Reported in 2 Bing. 314, and 9 Moore, C.P. 586.) D. endeavoured iu 1822 to raise in this country a loan for the benefit of Greek insurgents who were in arms against the Turkish Government ; and for this purpose he deposited with H. documents purporting to be a power of attorney and scrip certificates. The loan was not raised ; and D. sued H. in trover for the documents. Verdict for the defendant. Loan in aid of Persons in arms against a friendly State. Best, C.J., at Nisi Prins, " It was contrary to the law of nations for persons in England to enter into engagements to raise money to support the subjects of a Government in amity with our own in hos- tilities against their Government, and no right of action could arise out of such a transaction." Held by the Court of Common Pleas on motion for a new trial. That the ruling was correct ; and that a new trial ought not to be granted. The plaintiff had proposed to raise a loan for the Greeks in arms against the Government of the Porte.(a) For this purpose he lodged with the defendant, a stock-broker, an instrument which was alleged to be a power of attorney, signed abroad by the Exarch of Ravenna, but which turned out to have been fabricated in London ; and the defendant, at his request, procured to be engraved certain scrip receipts, bearing a stamp. Suspicions having arisen as to the accuracy of the plaintiffs representations, the project of a loan failed, and the defendant refused to return to the plaintiff these papers, except upon receiving commission for scrip ; which commission the plaintiff offered to pay, provided the defendant would transfer to the plaintiff the scrip on which he claimed commission. No scrip, however, had ever been raised. The plaintiff, having in vain offered to comply with all other demands made by the defendant, sued in trover for the papers specified above, when the jury (at the trial before BEST, C.J., London sittings of the Trinity term last) being led to believe that the whole transaction was a fraud on the part of the plaintiff, found a verdict for the defendant. Pell, Seljt., now moved for a new trial, on the ground that the circumstance of the plaintiff having been engaged in a fraudulent transaction (admitting such to...
