The Express.
London, England, 1863-01-15 00:00:00

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

ElMow In Banco In Mary Term.--IBefore Lord Chief
Baron Pollock. and Barons Martin, Channell, and
wiklo.)
Mum V. WILICINSON.—Air ATTACHMENT FROM THE LORD

NATOlea COURT.
This action was in troves to recover 49 cases of chem.
pegne, tried before the Lord Chief Baron at the last sittings
at Guildhall, when a verdict was entered, by consent, for
the plaintiff, for 511. 9a., with leave reserved to move this
court to Niter a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. M. Smith, QC., on the part of the defendant,
now moved accordingly. The plaintiff, Phillot,
brought the action against the defendant, who is the
owner of Bofolph Wharf, where the champagne had been
landed from a ship called the Thames and Seine- The
champagne had been sent over for the Exhibition, but was
act very valuable, being only worth as, fat. per dozen, and
probably it was a good thing for the public health that it had
remained on the wharf ap to the present time. It was eon.
signed to a pence named Henry by a Mr. Bennett, who
signed the necessary delivery orders. On the 15th of July,
the wine was sold by Henry to the plaintiff Phillot, and on
the 22nd an attachment from the Lord Mayor's Court, in an
action against Henry, was issued in the ordinary form on
the wine, end served upon the defendant, in whose posses-
sion as wharbnger at was. On the 24th of July
the plaintiff applied for the wise. presenting the
delivery order properly signed, and the defendant showed
him the attachment, and said he would consult
his solicitor upon the matter. It wee admitted that there
bad been no conversion of the property by the defendant,
and the defendant complained that all the mischief bad
been caused by the plaintiff bringing this action without
giving him reasonable time to ciraider the difficulty in
which be was placed. On the evening of the 24th the
plaintiff's solicitor wrote to the defendant requesting the
Immediate delivery of the !wine and compensation for
the loss he bad sustaioed by its detention, and stating that
if he Aid sot hear from him by U next day he wee in-
structed to commence proceedinp against bun. The de-
fondant's solicitor replied that it wee a complicated
matter, and he was not fully acquainted with the
facta. He asked for a little mare time for inquiry, and
mid the defendant's desire was oral y to do what wee
right The plaintiff's solicitor wrote hack that hie client
had alneoly lost two cwitomen for the wine, and that he
had instructed him to issue process, and immediately after-
wards the writ was issued.
Mr. Baron Martin—Did the defendant interfere in any
way?
Mr. M. Smith--Not in the slightest degree.
Mr. Barn Martin—l think you are entitled to a rule on
the authority of a case decided in the Exchequer Chamber.
The Court of Common Mess decided, and the Exchequer
Chamber confirmed the judgment. that the act of the officer
ct• court in serving a process like the attachment is this
one could not be treated as the act of the defendaet err
tatieed by the defendant.
Mr. If. Smith said that in another case it bad been de-
ckled that the defendant should have time for consideration
where there was a doubtful claim.
Mr. Bane Mantis—l put toe matter higher and my that
the set was that of the officer of the court eke}
The COttli granted a rule aid