The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1818-03-16 00:00:00

lIOME CIRCUIT.

ESSEX ASSIZES.
CHISLUIVORD, FIIIDAY, MARCH 13.
EXTENTS IN MD.
PHIY.POTT v. soattocit and oViluag.
This was • case which excited a great deal of
'interest in the county, and is certainly our of ge-
neral importance to the community. It was nu ac-
tion upon the case, for wilfully, maliciously, anal
without any reasonable or probable cause. suing
out an extent in aid against the Plaintiff. whereby
his complete ruin was effected.
The outline of the case uu the part of the Plain-
tiff was this:—
The Plaintiff was a respectable fanner and malt.
ster, with a large family of infant children residing
at Thaxted in this 'county, and the Defeudatits
were bankers, carrying on business at Cambridge,
and at lii-hop Stortf6rd. in Hertfordshire, being
also receivers-general of certain King's duties,
and in that capacity under security to the Crawl,
to the amount of ninety thousand pounds. The
Plaintiff had kept cash with the Defendants. nod
had overdrawn Isis account to the amount of 66u/.
For the purpose of securing the Defendants in
this sum he lead given them a promissory note
payable on demand. preparatory to more sub-
&midisd security, into which lie afterwards en.
tered, namely, a mortgage 011041 his landed pro-
perty. and a warrant of attorney to confess judg-
ment by • certain day—which day would not occur
until the mouth of August, 1816. Upon receiving
the latter securities, they had leveed to deliver up
Hie promissory note, but failed to perform their
promise. Notwithstanding this treble security for
the tame flrht, the DefetirtintN, iii the mouth of
Allard), 1816, issued an extent in aid upon the
promissory note, which they had agreed to give up,
founded on the usual affidavit, that the Plaintiff
was in insolvent circumst.suces, and that the De-
fendants would be unable to pay the debt of the
Crown, unless they hall the assistauce of the prero-
gative process. Accordingly, under the extent, all
the Plaintiff's property was seised ; but, however,
the case being tried in the Court of Exchequer, the
Jury found it verdict against the Defendants, there-
by dechtring that there eau no debt due to them
from the Plaintiff to support the extent. In the
snout time, hoarser, the Sheriff's officer remained
in siossrasion of the P1161.61'1'6 property until the
following Term, when the extent was withdreen ;
lint the very rause day the Defendants entered up
judgment on their warrant of attorney, in pursuance
of which the Plaintiff and his children were turned
into the street, unit leis property sub!, thereby
effecting his ruin. In consequence of which the
present action was brought. it bring proved that
the Plaintiff, at the time of ...sing the extent, had
abundance of property to pity all ha debts, awl 'till
worth some hundreds of pounds. The Defendants
being aware of the Pleintiff's *lama circumstances,
it was contended that they had issued the extent in
aid maliciously and without :key reasonable or pro-
balite cause.
Mr. Serjeant ONst.ow, in an ingenious and elo-
quent address to the Jury, contended, that they
must be satisfied tint the Di &mittens hail not acted
from malicious motives, anti without any reasotnible
or probable cause. Ile was io u conclilum to nega-
tive the foundation of the action, by sheen% that
his clients haul acted upon legal advice, and upon a
conscientious conviction that the Defendant was in
insolvent circumstances at the time they issued the
extent in aid.
?.Jr. Baron Wimp summed up the case wills
great perspicuity. charging them, in point of law,
that the tiromissary note, upon which the extent
was founded, merged in the higher security tit the
mortgage and west raid of attorney. But it was for
the Jury to determine whether the Defendants buil
acted maliciously and without any reasonable or
probable cause. The evidence in the case certainly
proved that at the time they made their affidavit,
the Plaintiff was nut in insolvent circitinstaucrs,
and nothing was %hewn to justify tlpeir deposition
that the Plaintiff was unable to pay their debt. It
also answered, that they had agreed to give up the
Komi:ivory nute, upon receiving the other securities.
If, however, theM was no malice, or if there was u
' probable cause for the proceeding, the Defendants
won't' Ire entitled to a verdict.
The Jury foetid a verdict fur the Plaintiff--
danteges, 1.2001.