Yaisarri v Clement
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 December 1825 |
| Date | 18 December 1825 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 101
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
Subsequent proceedings, 3 Bing. 432, with annotations, to which add: Referred to Aksiomairroye Obschestvo A. M. Luther v. James Sagor & Co, [1921] 1 K. B. 456; Duff Development Co. v. Kelantan Government, [1924] A. C. 797.
[223] Dec. 18th, 1825. yrisarri v. clement. (H a foreign state is recognized by this country, it is not necessary, to support an allegation which describes it as a state, to prove that it is in fact an existing state, but if it be not so recognized, then such proof becomes necessary, and may be admitted. If a body of persons assemble together to protect themselves, and support their own independence, and make laws, and have Courts of Justice, that is evidence of their being a state ; and it makes no difference whether they formerly belonged to another country or not, if they do not continue to acknowledge it, and are in possession of a force sufficient to support themselves in opposition to it. A bond for foreign stock signed in Paris, but issued in England, does not require an English stamp. A foreigner has no right to negotiate in England a loan for the use of a State, which has separated itself from, and is at war with one of England's allies (such State not being at the time recognized by England) without the permission of the English Government , and if a letter in an English newspaper merely animadvert, though in the strongest terms, upon the illegality of such a transaction, it is no libel ; otherwise, if it go beyond that, and impute a moral fraud to the party engaged in it If in the inducement in a declaration in an action for a libel, two places are described as " States," and in the libel itself alluaion is made to one, and the other is actually mentioned under the title of a " neighbouring State," it is not necessary that the plaintiff at the trial should prove, that either of them were in fact States.) [Subsequent proceedings, 3 Bing. 432, with annotations, to which add : Referred to, Aksisnanrnoye Qbschestvo A. M. Luther v. James Sagor & Go , [1921J 1 K. B 456 ; Duff Development Co. v. Kelantan Government, [1924] A. C. 797 ] Action for a libel in the Morning Chronicle newspaper. The declaration stated, that the plaintiff, before the time of committing the grievances complained of, had been and was appointed by certain persons exercising the powers or authority of government, in a certain republic or state in parts beyond the seas, to wit, in the republic 01 state of Chih in South America, to the office or station of Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary from the said republic or state of Chili, to aad at the Courts of Europe, and amongst others to the Court of this united kingdom , and that he had been, and was authorized, empowered, and directed by the said * See the cases of Peacock v. Rhodes, Doug. 633 ; Grant v. Vaughan, 3 Burr. 1516 ; Egan r. Threllfatt, 5 Dow. & Ey. 326 , Greenstreet v. Carr, 1 Camp. 551 ; Wookey v Pole, Bart. 4 B. & A. 1, and King, Esq. v. Milsome, 2 Camp. 5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ionian Ships, Case of the (The Leucade)
...the opinions of the Law Officers below, App. F., p. 1229. (4) On this question see Taylor v. Barclay, 2 Sim. 213 ; Yrissari v. Clement, 2 C. & P. 223, 3 Bing. 432; Cremidi v. Powell below, p. 787; The Charkieh, L.R. 4, A. & E. 59; Mighell v. Sultan of Johore, 1894, 1 Q.B. 149, where it was ......
-
Yrisarri v Clement
...Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 579 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS Yrisarri and Clement S. C. 11 Moore, 308: at Nisi Prius, 2 Car. & P. 223. [432] yrisarri . clement. Feb. 13, 1826. [S. C. 11 Moore, 308: at Nisi Prius, 2 Car. & P. 223.] I. The Defendant having published imputatio......