IN THE COURTS OF THE NATIONS - DataSpace - Princeton ...

number of foreign subjects and protégés, especially earlier in the nineteenth century when the
rules of jurisdiction seem to have been more fluid. 113 The case of Rey v. Gassal and Benchimol,
which lasted from 1836 to 1841, involved a Jewish protégé who claimed to be a Moroccan
subject in order to use Muslim courts to his advantage. 114 In this case, Marius Rey, a French
businessman, attempted to sue ‘Abd al-Qarīm Gassal and Avraham Benchimol, a Moroccan
Muslim and a Moroccan Jew respectively who were business partners. Rey initially assumed
that Benchimol was a French protégé, due to Benchimol’s employment as an interpreter for the
French consulate. 115 However, at least for the purposes of this suit, both Benchimol and Gassal
declared themselves Moroccan subjects. 116 According to Morocco’s treaty with France at the
time, this meant that the case would be tried in an Islamic court. 117
113
For examples of this strategy, see: MAE Nantes, Tanger A 139, Affaires Joseph Souery avec divers: Mustapha
Dukkaly, Bakery, etc., 1851 (especially Shakery to Hay, 29 April 1851, in which Shakery warned the British
ambassador that Souery, a British protégé, would probably try to acquire some other foreign protection and pleaded
that “he ought not now to be allowed to repudiate it [his British protection] and avail of that of some other foreign
power of which he is not properly subject”); FO, 631/3, Elton to Hay, 16 April 1864 (in which a British subject
threatened to appeal to the Swedish consul if he was not satisfied with the British consul’s decision; it seems likely
that this would involve some sort of change in nationality, although it is also possible that the British subject would
simply have appealed to the Swedish consul against the rules of jurisdiction). See also MAE Nantes, Tanger F 5,
trial of Michel Mazzella, Gaëtan Ortéga, and François Amores, 11 September 1911. In this case, the presiding judge
remarked, “Attendu qu’il n’échappe pas au tribunal que dans les milieux de la chicane à Tanger, le premier soin des
hommes d’affaires en prévision des discussions ou procès est de rechercher une première complication en opposant
des intérêts dépendant des nationalités diverses, par conséquent des juridictions différentes.” This suggests that as
late as 1911, when it was significantly more difficult to change one’s nationality or protection, individuals in
Morocco (including foreigners and Moroccan subjects) thought it advantageous to involve people of various
nationalities in their business dealings in order to change the jurisdiction of a given case. For a slightly different
though related strategy, see USNA, reg. 84, v. 13A, Jacob Bibas to J. Toel, 22 December 1904 (in which Bibas, an
American protégé, sued one of his mokhalets (business partner who benefited from foreign protection); Bibas
intended to fire this mokhalet, but did not want to do so until the lawsuit had run its course lest the mokhalet, upon
returning to Moroccan jurisdiction, bring the case before the local qā’id).
114
MAE Nantes, Tanger A 138, Dossier Rey v. Gassal and Benchimol. Interestingly, it is possible that Marius Rey
was himself Jewish, or at least from a Jewish family that was originally from Gibraltar or North Africa. On Rey as a
Maghribi Jewish name, see Todd M. Endelman, “The Checkered Career of ‘Jew’ King: A Study in Anglo-Jewish
Social History,” Association of Jewish Studies Review 7/8 (1982-3): 71-2.
115
Benchimol had been working for the French consulate since 1815: see MAE Nantes, Tanger A 138, Dossier
“Affaire Abraham Benchimol avec le Gouvernement Française,” 1833.
116
MAE Nantes, Tanger A 138, Rey to Méchain, 16 October 1837.
117
Before the 1856 treaty with Britain, any case involving a European and a Moroccan subject could only be judged
in a Moroccan court (see the discussion in Chapter Seven). Even after 1856, however, this case would have gone to
a sharī‘a court because the defendants—Benchimol and Gassal—were Moroccan subjects.
321