The Express.
London, England, 1850-05-29 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEA3.—TENTUDAI
ammo nr ilerico.—lsreem Las Cann Ames Wrung, 111 P
JUNTO, Yenta, Ma. horns tiaeewsu, AMP Ma. Aisne:
TALFOVID.
Tata Quasar tr wit1 Mature On Lnistegrithent ATTACH
MATTIS OFII O. WILLIAM MINOIAM.
IVINT *GAMS I' Till SHNIUTF.
This case cam before the court upon cause being grown
against a rule to stay all further proceedings upon an attach-
ment against die sheriff of Leisestershire, spa payment by
him of such a sem of money as would compensate the plsin-
tiff, Kr. Ardis, he the damage whisk be had sustained is
soasptease of escape from custody of William Bingham,
who fad bees misted at his suit. It approved that the
defeadnat was arrested while retuning from his father's k-
nees!, for a debt of 2,0301., and that the parties went to the
house of the defendant's brother to discuss the matter.
After the conference was over, end whilst the defendant
sad others were about Retsina into a carriage, the defend-
ant ran beak into his eis home, and when the
sheriff's calor got into the house he could cot find the &-
readmit, who had escaped. The rals was obtained upon
affidavits, charging collusion as to the escape between the
tank to the plaintiff's attorney and tie defendant, but it
was now thews by the affidavit le reply, that no such collu-
sion had takengene. It wee now lIIIOMIIMd to the court
that the plain bad no right to proceed with his atta,:h.
went, which would have the effect of compelling the
sheriff to pay the whole amount of the debt, in respect of
whisk the arrest was male. This moseeding, it was urged,
was contrary to an set of parliament passed In
the year 1842, which made considerable alterations in the
liability of sheriffs. Previous to 1842, if • defen:tant ar-
rested upon final process escaped, the sheriff was liable to an
action for the whole amount for which the party had been
arrested ; bat by this act the liability by action nes limited
to the amount of the damage actually sustained by the
plaintiff. Another point raised was whether the plaintiff in
this case was likely to get say benefit from the arrest. On
tho other side, it was stated that the defendant was in debt
to the extant of upwards of 12,0001 , and was utterly insol-
vent ; hut in the affidavits in answer it was stated that the
defendant had an annuity of 3001. a year under the will a
his father, which annuity he bad offered to assign to the
plaintiff ;.and that he held the lucrative oaths of Queen's
messenger in France. To thereat of the annuity, however,
there was attached this coadifion, that the executors were
oily obliged to pay the annuity upon the defendant attend-
ing at the Town-hall in Nottingham and striniog a reosipt
for it. It was therefore contended that the defendant could
not legally have assigned the annuity to the Plaintiff.
Mr. tierjeant Byte., Mr. Lush. and Mr. Hanle's, showed
taw againet the role, sad Mr. fferjeant Channel! and Mr.
H. Hill sapported lt.
The Chiet Justice 'aid that this ease came before the court
in two points of view. First, there was a contempt of the
authority of the court in not using due and proper dili-
gence is the execution of the writ. The court had power to
vindicate Its own authority, and in regulating the penalty
regard should he bad not only to the contempt but
to the amount of damage which the plaintiff had actually
sustained. The question was, what fine should be
imposed, and what the term of the rule should be, in order
that the injured party might be compensated. The court
had some assistance from the legislature, which had pointed
out the rule by which the inclement of the court should be
directed. The law for some time was that a plaintiff should
recover the whole amount of the debt; but the legislature,
feeling the inconvenience of this provision, in 1842 passed an
act saying that the real damage sustained by a plaintiff
should be the amount that he should recover from the
sheriff. The question then was, what damage the plaintiff
bad sustained; and, although some materials were offered
to the court to estimate such damage, yet them materials
were of a very uncertein nature. 'init. was to some extent
Incidental to the manner in which the ease was brought
before the court, for it was upon affidavits, sad there
was no means of making a party swear an affidavit, nor of
Ratting such fail information as upon viva truce evidence.
Upon the whole, the court thought the proper course would
be to let the attachment stand over, and to give the plain-
tiff liberty to bring an action, and further that the sheriff
ahculd not embarrass the plaintiff in pleading, but should
plead only the general issue, and should admit the execution,
caption and &met. If, however, the plaintiff should prefer
a reference to an action It would be proper to permit, but
this would rot prevent what good sense and convenience
dictated—viz , an arrangement between the parties being
come to. The judement of the court was that the rule be
enlarged, that the attachment stand over, and that the
plaintiff be at liberty to bring his action upon the terms
mentioned.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-YL;TERDA T.
airvires as Sacco.
BorostrOw r. WtLLIANI.—SEQVISTILLTOKOI.
Mr. &melt applied for a rule Ceiling on the Bishop of
Winch, star to show cants why he should not return the
sums levied by him as eequettrator of the Tic irage of Cam-
berwell, and why he should not set apart thereon• one-filth
put for the maintenance of the vicar, and each further sum
as might be deemed ressonable for the rebuilding of the
' vicarage house. It was submitted that the bishop. acting as
sequestrater, should be treated as the ecclesiastical sheriff of
the court, and that he rule ought to go on both points.
Mr. Boron Platt— I hope this it a ChriitiAn court—(a
Isugh)—but we are tot "a court Christian," to which cha-
racter alone we could exercise any central over the bishop.
Mr. Sewell—But the :Bishop should be amenable to the
orders of the court just as an ordinary sheriff.
Mr. Baron Alderson could not see what juriedictina the
court had more than to require the Bishop to en ike the
return. There was a material distiacion between the
cases put. Beside,, the court would not compel a sheriff to
set wide any portion of the levy for the payment of rei.ts cr
the maintenance of the landlord. The utmost the court
could do would bets sp,irove of such an epp!icatiA of the
proceeds of the levy, if a return to that effect had been made.
The question could only be considered on the return.
After a short discus/lint, in the course of which it was
stated that the Bishop of Winchester had refused ,to enter
into the question at all, a rule ni►i was granted, calling on
his lordship to make the return.