Marshall
against Critico.
IN
THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Original Printed Version (PDF)
Original
Citation: (1808) 9 East 447
English
Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 643
Monday,
May 23d, 1808.
Referred
to, Musurus Bey v. Godban [1894], 1 Q. B. 541; 2 Q. B. 352.
Marshall against Ceitico. Monday, May 23d, 1808, One who had
been appointed Consul General from the Porte, but was dismissed several months
before from his employment, and another person~~resident here appointed in his
room, is not at any rate privileged from arrest, though at the time of the
arrest he had not received any official notification of his dismissal, or of
the appointment of the other.
Burrough moved to discharge the defendant from an arrest, on
filing common bail, on the ground of his privilege, under the stat. 7 Ann. c.
12, as being Consul General
644 DOE V. THE EARL OF LTTCAN 9
EAST.448.
from the Porte, and invested with a superintending authority
over the Turkish Consuls in the different sea-port towns, and not an ordinary
consul or agent for commercial purposes; in which respect he distinguished this
from Barbouit's case (a). But he also stated from the affidavit, that some
months previous to the arrest, the defendant had in fact been dismissed from
bis employment, and another person of the name of Natali, who was before
residing here, had been appointed in his place; but the defendant had then
received no official notification of his dismissal, and continued in fact to
exercise his office here until after the arrest. And he contended that the
defendant's privilege did not cease until notification at least of his
dismissal, and reasonable time to depart the kingdom if he thought fit. It did
not however appear that he had had any intenĮtion of departing.
Lord Ellenborough C.J. This is not a privilege of the
person, but of the State which he represents. And [448] that State having some
months before devested him of the character in which he claims the privilege,
and appointed another person here to exercise it; there is no just reason why
the defendant should not be subject to process as other persons; nor for the
State, by which he had been so dismissed from his employment, to take offence
at his arrest.
Per Curiam. Motion denied.