The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-04-15 00:00:00

FOSTOCK T. BLAKLOCK.

This was an action, brought by a Sheriff's Officer against the
executor of an Attorney, to recover his fees. The defendant
pleaded, first, the statute for limitations, secondly, he pleaded
piens. udhlimistravit. At the trial before 111 r. Sergeant Cross,
at the last Assizes at York, it appeared that the deceased
Attorney was in the habit of employing several Sheriffs' Officers,
and the plaintiff among the rest, with whom he had • running ac-
count, and he furnished the deceased Attorney with a statement of
the amount of his bill shortly before his death, including tees for
captions on nicsne process, poundage for captions in execution, ex-
penses for conveying prisoners to different parts, &c., in all
amounting to 57/., to which account the deceased Attorney made
no objection. It was objected that, upon the authority of Dew v.
Parsons, 2.1 It., and A. Rep. Z 2, a Sheriff could not maintain his
'llion for his fees, and therefore the bailiff could not be in a better
situation than the Sheriff.

Mr. Sergeant Caoss, however, was of opinion, that this cue
differed from the one cited, and the Jury found for the plaintiff,
damages 57/.
Mr. WS HITEMAN now moved for a rule to chew cause why
there should not he a new trial, or a nonsuit entered. He cited the
case of Dew v. Parsons, in which Lord Ellenborough had said that
there were many duties incident to the office of Sheriff, for which
the law had apportioned no reward, arrests among others; and,
therefore the action in that case was decided not to be maintainable.
The Learned Counsel contended upon principle, that if the Sheriff
could not maintain his action fot fees, certainly the bailiff could
not ; and he grounded this proposition upon the plain fart that
there was no reciprocity of' responsibility. ft the huliff defalcated
in his duty, the remedy was only against the Sheriff; and not
against the officer. Ile further contended, that if any one was re-
sponsible, it was not the Attorney, but the party suing out a writ.
The Coral' were unanimously of opihion that they ought not
to grant the rule applied for. They perfectly agreed that a Sheriff
could maintain no action for fees beyond those allowed by the
statute, viz., 20d. for a caption, and perhaps not fur them--
neither could the bailiff recover from the party arrested more than
four pence. That was the restricted fee specified by the statute to
be taken from any defendant for his arrest; but if an officer were
specially employed to arrest a party, he was entitled to a fair re-
munention for his trouble, and usage had fixed that remuneration
at a guinea, which was always allowed on taxation of costs ulti.
matelv, though a defendant arrested could not lie compelled to pay
it to the officer in the first instance. A kind of implied contract
existed, when a bailiff was employed, that he should be paid the
fee established by custom ; and as he could nut know therein.
denevs„ though he might know the names of the plaintiffs. the
attorney employing him was the party responsible to him. If it
were otherwise, all that .the Masters of the Court had dons hi-
then°, in allowing caption fees, on taxation of costs, would be il-
legal. With respect to fee+ for Sheriff's poundage. the plaintiff
was also entitled to recover that ; for, as the Sheriffs always looked
to their taws foe the payment of such dues, no doubt the plaintiff
had accounted to the Sheriff for the amount specified u•ller that
head in the account rendered, to which the decease(' Attorney had
made no objection ; and that latter circumstance took the case out
of the statute of limitations.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRIDAY, APRIL IS.
• .
The Cain was occupied the whole of the morning Is hearing
motions of no public interest.
At twelve o'clock the Lord Chief Justice tose to at( at Nisi Prius
in London.

CONSISTORY COURT, FRIDAY, Aram,. 14.

Fift EAR I. OF PORT/MOVE/I. PIT HlO CONMITTLE r marttlag,
f• ALIELY CALLING HERSELF COUNTERS OP POUTSNOI'TH.
lu this esuse the Court., during the last Term, ordered that the
law expenses of the Countess should be paid out of the moneys
belonging to the Earl of Portionouth., which were in the hoods of
his Committee. This not having been done, a motion was this day
made tor a monition against the Committee to enforce the payincnt
ofthe same.

Dr. Li•IHINGTOX opposed the motion, on the ground that an
applilation was at that very lime before the Lord Chancellor,
praying an order to the !IIIDO. effect.
Sir C. ROatwaors Manor opinion that he ought to otder a moot-
San to loom, leaving it to die Committee of the Earl to plead the
nature of the application made to the Court of Cher.cery, in their
return thereto. It would be the mo►e regular course, and would
not operate to the prejudice of either party.
111 E MARQUIS Or WESTMEATH V THE MARCHIONESS OF

WYESTItEATB.
At the rising of the Court, Sir C. Rost steorr said he understood
the par ire to this suit were anxious to obtain his decision, and he
should therefere prepare himself for giving judgment on the neat
Court day.

SLAVES. n B.—( From a late Trinidad paper )
The Protector of Slaves, referring to that part of the Order
in Council which calls upon him to notify the lowest rate
of wages at which %laves may hire themseJves to work, be-
tween the hours of ten on Saturday and ann.riae on Mon-
day, for the special purpose of preserving crops, &c. upon
any estate, has fixed such rates as follow
Drivers, hoilen, and artifiorrs of any deacnptioo,
per diem - 6a. currency.
Far any time not exceeding two hours - 2
Two, and not excfeding fuur hours . .
Field labourers per diem
For cot exceediDg four boar, • -

- 4