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/ssactsengr0580 and id is 1 raw text is: 2 CAR. & P. U2. YRISARRI V. CLEMENT 101
man asked for change in Bank of England notes, but afterwards agreed to take
those of the defendants' bank. Perhaps the circumstance of getting their own
notes into circulation, and the little profit they would thereby acquire, might abate
the degree of caution which they would have used under other circumstances.
Questions should have been asked, and those questions continued, till suspicion was
satisfied. One of the witnesses proved, that it is the practice of London bankers
never to change a note for a stranger without first making inquiry. I think the plan
adopted by the Bank itself is a very proper caution : but the Bank stand in the
situation of a payer, and the country banker is a discounter; and more caution
is required in the case of the latter than the former. The question for your con-
sideration is, whether the defendants in this case have used due caution or [222] not;
that is, in other words, whether they took the note in the usual course of business
for the course of business must require, in the usual and ordinary manner of con-
ducting it, a proper and reasonable degree of caution necessary to preserve the
interests of trade.
The jury found for the plaintiffs, observing, at the same time, that no suspicion of
unfairness could attach to the character of the defendants.
Vaughan and Bosanquet, Serjts. and S. M. Phillips, for the plaintiffs.
Spankie, Serjt., and Smirke, for the defendants.
[Attornies-Henson & D., and Sandys & Son.]
In the ensuing Hilary Term, Wilde, Serjt. obtained a rule nisi for a new trial,
which, after argument, was discharged. The Court being of opinion that the question
had been properly left to the consideration of the jury, and that there was no reason
for disturbing the verdict.*
[223] Dec. 18th, 1825.
YRISARRI V. CLEMENT.
(If 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 acknow-
ledge 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 Eniland'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 allusion 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,
Aksionairnoye Obschestvo A. M. Luther v. James Sagor & Co., [1921] 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 authotity 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 the office or station of Envoy Extra-
ordinary 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 ;
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 v. Threllfall, 5 Dow. & Ry. 326 ; Greenstreet v. Carr, 1 Camp. 551 ; Wookey v.
Pole, Bart. 4 B. & A. 1, and King, Esq. v. Milsome, 2 Camp. 5.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0580&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)