Vice-Chancellor discharged the order of the 4th of February. By the amended bill Achilles de Pereira was made a co-defendant. On the 13th of March, 1830, the Respondents appeared to the amended bill. On the 9th of May an order was made upon motion in both causes, that the Respondents should have a month's time to plead, answer, or demur to the Appellant's amended bill, after the Appellant should have answered the cross bill of the Respondents. This order was drawn up as on the 8th of May, 1830, and was affirmed by the Lord Chancellor, on appeal, by order dated the 6th of July, 1830. On the 15th of January, 1831, notice was served on the clerk in Court of the Respondents, that on the 20th of January the Court would be moved, before the Lord Chancellor, on behalf of the Appellant, that Don Juan Escudero, residing at No. 30. Weymouth Street, Portland Place, in the county of Middlesex, might be permitted, on the behalf and in the name of his Majesty the Appellant, to put in an answer to the Respondents' cross bill; his Catholic Majesty thereby undertaking that the answer so to be put in, and all proceedings in the said causes consequent upon it, should be as valid and effectual for the purposes of the said causes, in such manner as the Court should direct, as if such answer had been put in personally by his Majesty in the ordinary course; or that the Court would be pleased, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to accept the answer of his Majesty, without oath or signature; or to make such other order therein as to the Court might seem fit. 1833. THE KING OF ບ. HULLETT. 1833. THE KING OF HULLETT. In support of this application an affidavit was, on the 18th of January, 1830, filed by Juan Escudero. He thereby stated, among other things :— That he was a native of Spain, and one of the liege subjects of his Catholic Majesty the King of Spain; and was a secretary honorary to his Majesty; and that he had been duly appointed by his said Catholic Majesty, and by the board in the pleadings of the first above-mentioned cause, called the Board of Examination and Liquidation of Claims, commissioner in this country for the purpose of recovering payment of the proceeds of the indemnity funds in the pleadings in those causes mentioned from the above-named Defendants, in the first above-mentioned suit, and the other persons, in whose possession the same then were, and for the purpose of finally adjusting, arranging, and settling all accounts, and other matters then in dispute, relative to said funds; and that deponent then was, and had been ever since the month of March, 1827, actually engaged in the duties of his said office. That he was, and had, ever since the year 1824, by appointment of his Catholic Majesty, been secretary to the board in the pleadings in those causes named, called the Board of Examination and Liquidation; and that in the month of March, 1827, deponent and Don Mateo de la Serna were, by a power of attorney, duly executed, jointly and severally appointed the attorneys and attorney of his said Catholic Majesty, and the said board, in this country, for the purpose of recovering the said indemnity funds from the present holders thereof, and finally adjusting and settling all accounts relative thereto. That the said Don Mateo de la Serna then was, and had, ever since the month of March, 1829, been resident in Madrid, where he held a situation of high trust and confidence under his said Catholic Majesty, in consequence whereof deponent had, ever since the said month of March, 1829, alone acted under the said power of attorney. That he, deponent, had then intrusted to his charge the sole superintendence, conduct, and management in this country, of the proceedings in the above causes on behalf of his said Majesty, as such commissioner, agent, or attorney of his Catholic Majesty and the said board as aforesaid, and that he is in constant communication with the ministers of his said Catholic Majesty, and with the said board, relative to the matters in these causes as such commissioner, agent, or attorney as aforesaid. That when the answer of the Respondents was put in to the original bill of complaint of His Catholic Majesty in the first above-mentioned suit, he laid the same before counsel to advise thereon, and the further proceedings to be taken in that suit, on behalf of his Catholic Majesty, and that deponent was advised by counsel, that in consequence of the statements contained in the answer, and the manner in which the Defendants had attempted to shape their defence, and thereby elude the claims of his said Catholic Majesty in that suit, it would be necessary to make several material. alterations and amendments in the said bill, and to introduce therein several new facts, with a view to meet the defence set up by the said answer, and to obtain a further discovery from the Respond 1833. THE KING OF บ. HULLETT. 1833. THE KING OF บ. HULLETT. ents, and upon the many important matters in issue in that suit. That it was thought advisable, before proceeding to amend the said bill, to institute various enquiries, both in France and Spain, on behalf of his Catholic Majesty, in order to procure further information relative to the matters in issue in that cause, and which was done accordingly; and that, owing to the great length and importance of the said amendments, and the many enquiries so previously instituted, both in France and Spain, as aforesaid, for the purpose of obtaining further and more accurate information as to the real facts and merits of this case, the said amended bill was not finally settled until the month of January. That he believed that his Catholic Majesty had personally little or no knowledge of the matters in the said cross bill, inasmuch as the transactions stated in the said bill referred to acts done by the government of Spain, and not to acts done by his Catholic Majesty personally, and in his individual character. That, believing it would be impossible to procure an answer to the said cross bill from his Catholic Majesty personally, (inasmuch as deponent conceived it would be, and he had been instructed by authority that it would be, considered both by his Majesty and the Spanish government beneath the rank and dignity of his Catholic Majesty, as a sovereign prince, to put in an answer personally and upon oath in this court, or in any of the courts or tribunals of this or any other country,) he, the deponent, in consequence of an order made by the Lord Chancellor as thereinbefore mentioned, had a consultation with counsel to receive their opinion as to what course, under all circumstances, it would be expedient for his Majesty to pursue, in order to overcome the difficulties which had been thus interposed to the further prosecution of the said first above-mentioned suit. The deponent then, after mentioning the advice given by counsel, stated that his Catholic Majesty had authorized him to make the application which was then pending, to put in an answer in his Majesty's name, and to consent that all proceedings consequent thereupon should be as binding as if an answer had been filed in the usual form. Then, after stating his own belief or opinion as to some matters, he concluded by stating, that he believed that no discovery or information which his Catholic Majesty personally could give to the matters contained in the said cross bill would be of any benefit to the Respondents in their said suit, and that, from the knowledge he the said deponent possessed as to the several matters contained in the said cross bill, he the said deponent had no doubt whatever but that he could give a full answer and discovery unto all the matters therein contained. This motion was argued before the Lord Chancellor, on the 4th day of March, 1831. On the 10th of September, 1831, a notice was served on the Respondents that the Lord Chancellor would be moved on behalf of his Catholic Majesty, the King of Spain, that the order of the Vice-Chancellor, made in the said causes, on the 8th day of May, 1830, might be discharged, and also that, at the same time, the motion then pending for taking the answer of his Catholic Majesty the King of 1833. THE KING OF v. HULLETT. |