Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/316

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
COURT of COMMON PLEAS of Philadelphia County.
305


1788.

and, by the ftrongeft implication, fhews, that it could not be done at the fuit of a private perfon. A little higher, in the fame page, a general pofition of Judge Blackʃtone will be found, which fully reaches the cafe in queftion. ‘‘Neither (fays he) can any member

‘‘ of either Houfe be arrefted, or taken into cuftody, nor ʃerved with

‘‘ any proceʃs oƒ the Courts oƒ Law, nor his fervants arrefted &c. without

‘‘ a breach oƒ the privilege oƒ Parliament. ’’

In the cafe before us, the Defendant appears to have been ferved with a Summons out of this Court, during the time oƒ the actual ʃitting oƒ the Convention. – Whether we take the law to be, as it ftood in England before, and at the time of paffing the act of W. 3. ; or as it ftood after the paffing that act down to the 10th oƒ Geo. 3. about fix years before our revolution, it is clear that no members of Parliament, other than thofe particulary excepted, could be arreʃted or ʃerved with any proceʃs out of the Courts of Law, during the ʃitting oƒ Parliament.

We cannot but confider our Members of Affembly, as they have always confidered themfleves, initled by law to the fame privileges. They ought not to be diverted from the public bufinefs by law fuits, brought againft them during the fitting of the Houfe ; which, though not attended with the arreft of their perfons, might yet oblige them to attend to thofe law fuits, and to bring witneffes from a diftant county, to a place whither they came, perhaps foldly, on account of that public bufinefs.

The Defendant, therefore, muft be difcharged from the action. [♦]


KUNCKLE verƒus WYNICK.

C

OVENANT.– The argument arofe upon the following cafe, ftated for the opinion of the Court:–‘‘ John Kunckle on the 7th day ‘‘of Oct. 1784, conveyed to Nicholas Wynick, in fee fimple, alot of ground

‘‘ in


[♦]Since thefe Reports were committed to the Prefs, I have been favored with a note of another cafe in this Court, upon the queftion of privilege ; and, I hope, I fhall be excufed for introducing it here.

CALDWELL verƒus BARCLAY et al.


Foreign Attachment.–Moylan obtained a rule to fhew caufe why this Attachment fhould not be quafhed, too the ground that one of the Defendant's, Barelay, being an American conful, and in that character actually refiding abroad in the public fervice, was not within the defcription of perfons, whofe effects were made liable to a Foreign Attachment by the act of Affembly.

The rule was oppofed by Wilʃon, Bradƒord, and Sergeant, who contended, that as a Conʃul, Barelay was not entitled, by law of nations, to any privilege, or exemption from legal procefs ; that, even if he was privileged on account of his official character, he had loft that advantage, by his partnerfhip with the other Defendant, who was not entitled to it ; and that the act of Affembly makes no difference between perfons ferving their country aboard, and any other non refidents.

After an able argument, the opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Preʃident, SHIPPEN ; agreeably to which

The rule was difcharged.

Q q