Yrisarri v Clement
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 February 1826 |
| Date | 13 February 1826 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 130 E.R. 579
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
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 imputations against the Plaintiff as envoy of the state of Chili, and the Plaintiff in a declaration for libel having stated as matter of inducement, that he wai envoy of that state: Held, upon motion for a new trial, that the admission of these two facts upon the face of the alleged libel was sufficient proof of them to enable the Plaintiff to sustain his action,-2. An action of libel dqei not lie for any thing written against a party touching his conduct in an illegal transaction; but for misconduct imputed to him in any matter independent of the illegal transaction, though arising out of it, an action lies.-3. Held, that the following passage, "The Plaintiff lost no time in transferring himself, together with '200,0061. stetling of John Ball's money, to Paris, where he now outtops princes in his style of living," did not impute to the Plaintiff having committed a fraud on the English nation. Tbis was an action for a libel. After the usual allegation of the Plaintiffs good character, tba first count of the declaration proceeded,- "And whereas, also, before the time of the committing the grievances by said Defendant in this count and the four next following counts mentioned, the said Plaintiff 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 or state of Chili, in South America, to tbe office or station of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary from the said republic or state of Chili, to and at the courts of Europe, and amongst others to the court of this United Kingdom, to wit, &o. "And whereas before the time of the committing the grievances by said Defendant in this count: and the four next following counts mentioned, the said Plaintiff had been and was authorized, empowered, and directed by said persons exercising the powers or authority of government in the said republic or state of Chili, in South America, to negotiate a loan or loans for tbe service of said republic or state of Chili, $o wit, at, && "And whereas, also, before the committing of the grievances by said Defendant in this count and in the four next following counts mentioned, to wit, on the [433] 1st January A, D. 1820, the said Plaintiff had come to and arrived in this country, and had become and was resident therein, to wit at London aforesaid, in the parish -and ward aforesaid; 580 YRISARRI t). CLEMEMT 3BIHO.fi* " And whereas, also, before the committing of the grievances by Defendant in this count and in the four next following counts mentioned, to wit, on the 1st July 1822, the said Plaintiff, by virtue and in exercise of the said power and authority conferred on him by the said persons exercising the powers or authority of goverment in the said republic or state of Gbili, in South America, had entered into, made, and concluded, for and on the part of said republic or state of Chili, a contract with certain persons, to wit, John Hullett and Charles Widder, carrying on trade and commerce in the city of London by and under the style and firm of Hullett, Brothers, and Co., for raising a certain loan of money, to wit, a loan for 1,000,0001. sterling money of this kingdom, for the service of said republic or state of Chili, by the sale of certain bonds or obligations, to wit, bonds or obligations of and on the part of the government of the said republic or state of Chili, which said bonds or obligations had been and were signed by said Plaintiff as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary for the said republic or state of Chili, and by virtue and in exercise of the said power and authority conferred on him for that purpose as aforesaid, and had been and were issued by him the said Plaintiff to the said Messrs. Hullett, Brothers, and Co., and had been and were sold and disposed of by and through the agency of them the said Messrs. Hullett, Brothers, and Co., to divers subjects of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Duff Development Company v Kelantan Government
-
Ionian Ships, Case of the (The Leucade)
...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 held that the......
- Smith's Newspapers Ltd v Becker
- Monta of Genoa v Cechofracht Company (The Marilu)