HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0053 and id is 1 raw text is: WOLFF V. OXHOLM
ings. By analogy to all the inconveniences that would follow such a practice in civil
proceedings, he ought not to be allowed to follow it upon the present occasion. And
'I do not agree that this case is the same as if there were no addition, for there is an
addition, though it is a faulty one.
Bayley J. The Court will not, as required, give judgment in bar upon a plea in
abatement ; and the [91] plea is ill, because it does not give a better addition in a way
that it can be traversed.
Abbott J. I am of the same opinion. It is a long time since the practice prevailed
of quashing an indictment for this cause on motion, neither is this a motion for that
purpose ; and it is a settled point, that on plea in abatement the Court will not give
judgment in bar. I think this plea is bad in form, inasmuch as the defendant doth
not shew his addition at the time in a traversable form, so as to enable the prosecutor
to have a fresh indictment.
Holroyd J. With respect to the quashing of this indictment, or giving judgment
against it, without regard to the plea, it is laid down, that if an indictment give a bad
addition, it will be held by the appearance of the defendant (a), and so if there be no
addition (b).
Judgment quod respondeat ouster.
[92] G. WOLFF AND OTHERS, Assignees of J. Wolff and J. Dorville, Bankrupts,
against OXHOLM. Thursday, February 6th, 1817. An ordinance made by the
Government of Denmark pending hostilities with Great Britain, whereby all ships,
goods, money, and money's worth, of or belonging to English subjects, were
declared to be sequestrated and detained ; and all persons were commanded,
within three days, to transmit an account of debts due to English subjects, in
default of which they were to be proceeded against in the Exchequer; in conse-
quence of which, a suit then depending in the Danish Court for recovering a debt
due from a Danish to a British subject was not further prosecuted, and the debt
was afterwards paid by the Danish subject, at the rate specified by the ordinance,
to commissioners appointed in virtue of the ordinance to receive payment, upon
production of whose receipt the Danish Court quashed the suit,-was held to be
no answer to an action against the Danish subject to recover the same debt in the
Courts of this country, for the ordinance not being conformable to the usage of
nations, was held to be void.
[Referred to, Phillips v. Eyre, 1870, L. R. 6 Q. B. 27 ; West Rand Central Gold
Mining Company v. R., [1905] 2 K. B. 408.]
Assumpsit for money lent by the bankrupts, money paid, and money had and
received. Plea non assumpsit. At the trial before Lord Ellenborough C.J. at the
London sittings after Hilary term 1816, there was a verdict for the plaintiffs for
41061. 10s. 6d., subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case.
The plaintiff, G. Wolff, is a native and subject of the King of Denmark, but many
years ago was naturalized in this country by Act of Parliament, and has resided here
ever since. He and the bankrupts (who are British subjects) carried on trade here in
partnership, under the firm of Wolffs and Dorville. On the 7th of February 1800
the defendant, who is a Danish born subject resident in Denmark, was indebted to the
partnership in the sum of 21011. 7s. 5d. sterling for monies paid and advanced by
them for the defendant in this country, and bearing interest at 5 per cent. For the
recovery of this sum Wolffs and Dorville directed their proctor at Copenhagen to
institute proceedings against the defendants, and accordingly a suit was instituted in
the proper Court at Copenhagen. In answer to this suit the defendant set up some
unliquidated claims of himself and [93] one Frederick Hage, against Wolffs and
Dorville, who were thereupon advised by their proctor to assign the debt and interest
to some friend in this country, in order that the same might be sued for and recovered
in the Danish Courts in his name, by which means they would remove the difficulty
arising from the counter claim of the defendant and Hage, but the defendant never
had any notice of such advice. Conformably thereto, an indenture, under the hands
and seals of the partners, dated 28th January 1806, was executed in London, whereby,
1177
6 M. & S. 91.
(a) 2 Inst. 670.
(b) Per Keiling, 1 Sid. 247,](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0053&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)