The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-12-06 00:00:00

.--- ! s - -
•-,,----.-- ,•. • • 'N- "Twqr.l
.44r ,
,
\ a
i
' • 'I t
. '
i .. . . .
maned till 22d Tune; Ib2. when she was discharged. Sbe hair
remained in the gaol ever ,rote as matron, being appointed to that
situatisa by the visiting alsaristratee. Chanute Jenkins came Into
,my custody the 22d February, 1821 ; and was tfisehergad on the f
•
20th altirea,llS2l. i 1
Ann Stamen—l am a niece of the plaintiff's'.plaintiff's'.l remember i
their being taken to thecounty gaol, tp February. 1821. They ;
were then living at Credden Hill. about four miles from Hertford.
Mr.-James lived next door to them. Before they went to gnol, flit.
James had made an enlargement of his house and round,
Do you know whether any cattle ever came upon --•
Mr. Sergeant AV renr—Can they go into that, ply jawed ? . 1 The Conn CHIEF JULTICE—I think not. If you wished to
have shown these facts you should have brought 'true action against
Mr. James for maliciously causing them to outlawed. The
Sheriff is only answerable for his officer's acts, rind not for Mr.
James's. •
•
Witness—The plaintiff's mother lived there prev,ous to her
death ; and the plaintiffs continued there afterwards. They had '
a field and garden adjoining. When my atilt Charlotte came r ,
out of prison in March, 16421, she returned to live at Coden Hill.
and kept a day school there. She used to go to Hereford occasion- ally to see her sister Ann, who was still is gaol, I lived at Here-
ford, but used to visit my aunt Charlotte et (;redden Hill every San.
day. I used to go with her to my that Ann while in gaol. I wet
not present when any person took possession of the garden and premises. I have been there between July and November, 1824,
when my aunt Charlotte was in possession of the premises. I
never knew any doe else being in poet slim of it. Cross.exeminee by Mr. Sergeant, ai'traos —I have hoed my
aunts thy that they were entitled. each to one-Meech part of the
premises. I have never heard them say that they had conveyed' v
their share'. to Mrs. Lewis. They never said to me that they were
afraid of Mr. James, and that they locked themselves up front
him every 'lay in the week, except Sundays. e.
Mr. John Rudlin, Clerk in the Auditor's Offiae for the Lend i
Revenue, produced an enrolment of a lease to John James, Gent.
made by the Commissioners of AVtiods and Forests, of the premises
. . )in question, in pursuance of the Statute 2, Geo. 4:
Mr. Sergeant WILDE objected to 'hie being read, and said the
..
lease itself might to be produced.
1
Mr. Sergeant Takonv sontet,a.d that the enrolment was a
public document, and direr/ace adoassilde evidence. He quoted /
the case of Smartell v. a tiliame, 1 Salkelli, p. 2110, wherk the en-
rolment of a bargain ant. sale, under the Statute of Henry YIN. • •
was evidence, without the nreducaion of the original deed. .
Mr. Sergeant Ncitarta alio sebmitted that the plaintiffe could •
not maintain this action, iaasatilet is f appeared by the record that i
, their title was several aid the action waif a joint action. As an
' injury done to them severally would revive the damages to be *
apportioned, this was not the form of action they should have
'dewed. i - •
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICII aid be site desirous to decide
points at It'iri Prins if he could; u If dften need the panies
.' t much expense. He was clearly of opinion that the fueM df Fiction
was right. The injury complained?? slat tldne to the possession, . iI -
which was joint, and not to the smelt', which wits several. The 1r
case of Olney. v. Spearman, 2 Hen. Blackstone, p. 388, was an
authority for this opinion. But with Amara to the question of ~.1
evidence, hie Lordship was of anthemth -at the eurolrhent was not
admissible as a proof of the {rated; His Lordship then took •
notes of the two points, and neadaa =lame of Ith decisions neon I
them. i
Mr. Thos. Day—l live at Hereford, end have for thanetitrie it
known the plaintiffs. I had lashed" Marlins at the premises in
June 1821, I visited there after July, ana;elthe.lag the months I
of August and Septerither. She was In the, Apaise, and a man was f
in possession at the time. I know that it I* al men with attends ti
the Sheriff's officer. • . Ile ,nerae• • ,
The Loan CHIEF JUSTICE—That NODitiot—, The ma who
attends the Sheriff's officer might NOR been parRIA MI courtship
]
to this young woman. l, .
Mr. Sergeant TADDY—ft was a Yea* relugtf Obresliipa as the
Hake of Rutland said on the oceaaiou of the nestriagif &Me YWarat
King Edward and the Queen of Scuts. . it
Mr. Lawrence, attorney for the plaintiffs, thenpreved that Ain
costs amounted to Sea Ills. 2d., 211. 7s. 64. of which was' allowed t 1
by the Prothonotary, and had been paid hi/Mr...Limes.
Alo Fieiden, an attorney, said thatoklippt clip kennels : tr.ig.ho be i
taken off, esatera .....•0 _
Elizabeth Lewis examined—t resided- 4shb.dreilalata^ before
they went to prison, and remained there aft* Chadotte had re-
turned.
~
Llo you remember Mr. Ames .thltatakjitiClFtsaion of the pre .
miser' ? " ''•'' --.-
~
~,..,_
;
The Loeb CHIEF JusTtet Iva thrit'ilildence could net be .
1 '
taken.. The.pleintiff ought to hilt prodatied the warrant order
which the Sheriff's officer meted. •
Mr. Sergeant TADDY observed, that the possession was net
taken tinder any warrant, but under the lease which was granted by
the Crown.
The LORD CUIE7 JUSTICE—But yod have not ehown that i
there was any swell kw.
Mr. fiergeset TAHOE—Then, my I,otd, I will show that air.
James did take possession under a supposed lease.
The Loap Cuter JUITICE—Vuu cannot do it. Ton tmaht .
to have .brought your action against Mr. James, or have made hen ' a
a witness.
This was the plaintiri ate,
.
Ideetieramaat Wiens tialdteseol the Jury for the defender!. , a
Re said this was a cave of a first iinpresdon. The Shed!' was in
I general perfectly justified in acting upon the authority of the plain-
tiff;and, if the consequence" of the Sherlfl"a acts were injurioe%
i I
by pureeing such illesciimi the pealed Injured generally brought
their action against the plaintiff: There was, therefore, no legel
complaint against the Saeriff for having returned non est inventi...
This practice had been sencdoned by the Courts for a long period.
If, however, the Court should now say • that these returns were
wrong,..he was sure they_ would not occur again. But there was
/
abundaht reason, ht this cute, *by the present action could not be
sustained. Tie upset of themetion was this, that if the plaintiffs
hataknosro that they were wanted in that suit they would have ap. k•
>.
peered. There had, however; been ample Poke KilTll to theta ]
before the judgment of waiver was pronounced. They were de..
manded five times et the County Court, and proclaimed three times
at the church doors. He would 'say, that it was impose/Me to re. 1
verse an outlawry Ly saying that -the-parties had not euffaclent no-
tice, for that was the legal, rnede of giving theta notice.' Hut the
question was, whether the Sheriffs had bein negligent Of nos?
He contended that there was no moof of negiiteasee. '.The Sheriff
was not bound to know every poor woman tetra oceuaied..ll eet•age
or kept a school in his county; nor was it tisualaerldnitetralia wear r ! I
sent to him, to inarcb his gall to find the party.' Bet en pose a
writ woe issued eamiust a person, 'Lott. on ini teems hand to the . i
Sheriff, the attorney should say, '! there, Sir; is a watt,but you
1 •
need nor look for the defendant, you cannot fintahim, sedaa, -who
am responsible to the directions I pave, eelaymathat this
_array is
not to be found, and you may return so?' He contended, 'that the
Sheriff might have made the return without bay bionic.. The evi-
dame was not sufficient to show negliganc,et antejdos, nothing was. ,
. ''...,
said to the Sheriff as to this being a writ t. Which It proem* of
outlawry was intended to be gromulett, effheoff had not the i
0
slightest reason to suppose it. Had he knowo that, then, indeed, r
there might have been some ground for this accusation. TteJary
would also remember, that nnless they found there had been negli- t i
genre as to both the plointifGathey could not find a verdict egehot
the defendant. It was a question of fact, anti not of law, and t o
trusted it would be their opinion that no evidence existed to prove - a t '
that the Sheriff had been negligent.
The Loan CFI LEO JusTrct regretted that en much time should ,) ii
...,,
have been lost in a trial of so trifling a nature as this. The goes-
tion was, whether the Sherifahad been guilty of neglect in malting
the return of non est invents* to the writ. Undoubtedly the fact
of the parties living in the county wag not sufficient moot of' negli- e
Bence. One of the parties was In gaol, but there was no direct
evidence that the Sherllrs officer knew that fact. It had also been
proved that the other party was living within font miles of the
city of Hereford. The question was, might the Sheriff placer 11.,
have known dud these two women were in the county ? If so, des .tr
action was maintainable. His Lordship, foe one, hoped that that
action would have the effect Of teaching Sheriffs that they were not
! i''
justified in acting upon the mere information of any party, but that
they had a duty to perform, which required them to be mare Ma- r
, cutely acquainted with the facts before they made this species cat
i return, of which his Lordship had all his life been complainice.
Why was It that gentlemen of rank and property were selected 'or .
the office of Sheriff, but that there should be a fund to resort to by i
parties who should suffer by the neglect of those who were ap-
pointed to execute the Hines write? The Jury, however, would a
' confine theit iniatity to the point of negligence, which mast be as
' to both the plaintiffs, to entitle them to their verdict.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages let (the 1
. . stun doe tothe attorney for setting aside the outlawry); thus fan] -
ing that the Sheriff war guihr of negligence.
CONSTRUCTION OF TUE COURT. •
In the course of the morning the Loth Cwitw J Dealt a con:.
planted of the many currents of air that passed through the Court a ;
on any of the valves or windOws being opened, and of -the intake.
able heat that was expaienced when they were closed. His Lord- . ..,
ship said be was confined to his bed nearly the whole of Sunday in
consequence of a cold he had caught from the draughts on Satin- i a day. It was his intention to adjourn over till Thursday, with she k
hope that some alteration would, in the mean time, be made is the
mode of ventilating the Coma
The Jury have constantly complained of the draught whiter
comes down from the lantern directly upon their beide and sets si.
them sneezing most incontinently. When it rains the table of die
Court and the wigs of the Learned Sergeants on the front seats get
a gentle sprinkling, to the vexation of the officer who takes care of
the former, and to the equal satisfaction, no doubt, of the perru. e
quicr, whose profeesional skill adorns the latter. ,
. —.......-- .
COURT OF EXCHEQUER, DECEMBER 7.
4
Sittingsafler .11figiachnas Tern,bdlrre the LORD CHIEF BARON
and a Special Jury. .
THE KING Si. NELSON.'
This was a scare facies against the executors of the defendant, a.
,
one of the 'Hoene,' et the hood of 1,0001. given for the good condoct i
iof Captain Correll, the Paymaster of the lath Regiment of the.
( 1
goons.l te cue for the Crown was neater the conduct of the Solieitco.
General, Mr. Clarke, and 31r. Parke; for the defendant, AIL
Rowel and dir. Steers.
The case, which has been mare than once before the public. was
this :—Cettoin deficiencies appearing in the accounts of Captain e '
Correll in the year 1807, an inquiry tusk place; it then was ditto.
vered that C.eaain Correll had ellowed tote )tike of Cumberialtd, 1
teed other persone, to overdraw their accour.ts in snce a manner,
that ho became indebted to the Government to the emoute at a II k
i
bonito-I pounds.. Captain_ Correll was bILUSbi to a (..' up t-g a: :a,
and thamised front his saus.iuu. A cout.t.unkaatz .r. sr Wadi
, ~. , •
1 *
' f •
i,
mi‘• . ,
_ .. . • . . .
e
__ • :