The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-07-14 00:00:00

-

LAW IN7;ELLIGENCE.

tOURT OF CHANCERY. WitcoLn's
FaiDAY, Jui.e 13.
•
It will be reerdlected tint the Lord Chalicelisr
nn Wolinrsotoy inoteispot to give his 1111.4-41 a% col
judieriteoots this 1111 l ruing. At hum psst nine o'eloot:1:
his I..nvol,!iiio *Loot dawn wow(' that he Will preve.oleii
from sitting. in the Court this day. oto6 hr wits eiblig
rd to attend elsewhere on !Intim-gut public business.

COVRT OF gING'S REAM Guitaisiall.
FRiroai, JULY 13.

IttCHARDsoN v. eta T. WEAVE, BART. AND
NACKII7.
This was on anion cguin.t the late High Siteriff
of the county of Essex and his wake, for-itawtalting
and imprisoning the Plointiff. The Defenghteis
pleaded tole anthiarity of n writ of en. Se. isistett /lot
of the Court .1.1 King's Bench against loin for e,uo/.
The PI • 'ftio his replication delend 'hilt Nil
writ 11411 issued odt of the Court of fillip Benin
artlosst loon. u.s which imitte was injure'.
Mr. ScAitt.ETT seated that the Ploisitiff was a
Efllettleition residing at o.k ICI', Wanstratl, O
lirls wily to London on the 30111 Ovbiber bits, he
was •topl curl sukeit hub cu•to.'y ray the Defesidatit
`racket, the officer of die She' tf of ortiler
the anthitill of a writ or Unpins rid Sehefirri-
enduni for at debt of 5001. He • ediairly to-
formed the officer that it woe o mistake, ail I.e
owed Ito enmity, and did not even know the
person named as Plaintiff in :he writ, 6141181 afar
flit hit name was ‘Villistn John
and not W. Richardson, as iii the writ. The
officer, however, insisted on keeping limo, and did
in fact detain him from Saturday till the Wed-
nesdaly following. when it was discovered that 1../
attorney living in London of the name of Mills
(which was endorsed on the writ) hue*, soy thi. g
eif the transactioit. The Plaintiff was then set at
liberty, on his undertaking to surrender himself,
if the Sheriff should le- het-rafter culled erpoie Poe
this file iminisonnient the Plaintiff i.ow *mode:
compensation; and though hr (Mr. Scarlet') did
Dot ask for vitolictive damages, yet he ouhutitteal
the ioconveitience to which his client had been put
by this wrongful act of the officer eontled him to
ask for ouch a sum et the hands of the Jure as
woad make the Defendant more careful in Intuit'.
Evidence was Lion examined, which proved the
facts as above 'send.
Mr. Guaticv addresord the Jury fur the De-
fendant. The writ, he boated; t awe to the office of
the Under Sheriff, tuclosed in a note to the fellow-
iug effect :-
4 With Mr. Mines compliments, and requests she en-
closed may be imitated isisuedistely:"
and proceeded so describe the Pleiutiff as living at
Ork Hall, mar Wanstead, where, fact, 1w did
live. The Sheriff, die Jury would observe, was
bound to execute the Writ which he had seceived,
and could not know whether there was a jadgeueut
or not. It appeared there was no judgment, but
that the Officer of the Court of linig's Bench had
been imposed upon, writhe writ had bran issued, es
the Plaintiff himself suggested, BY some penal's!
enemy of his who was in the profession of the law,
and therefore competent to devise and execute the
trick. His Learned Friend, Mr. Smartt, bad not
asked them for vindictive damages; hot be con-
ceived 'bat he ought not to ask fair may damages at
all from these Defendates ; and he submitted, that
if the Plaintiff was the peen'', intended by the writ,
the Defendant was entitled to their verdict, notwith-
standing the Plaintiff's name was William John
Richardson, tuid the writ ran Writ. Richardson only.
Mr. SCA &LETT, in reply, contended, that no prin-
ciple could be more deeigerouo than that laid downs
by his Learned Friend (Mr. Gomel), that a She.
riira officer might in fact take his instructions from
an anonymous piece of paper. He contended that
it was his duty to have searched for the judgment
immediately, instead of keeping the Plumed,' in
custody from Saturday till Wednesday. The She-
riff was certainly bound to obey the writ, but lie
was not authorised by it to take the wrung man.
What world be the consequence if this sort of plea
could be held to justify the officer ? There could
be no perooual security, for every officer might he
made the instrument of any men's malice against
his neighbour. Thr officer ought to have taken his
instructions from some one whom he knew, and then
if wrong were done, that person would be answer-
able : es he had nut done so, he must answer for
it himself.
The LORD CHIRP JUSTICE summed tip the evi.
dence to the July. His Lordship observed. that
had the writ coulained William John, although it
had been Obtained fraudulently and midst ly,
the Sheriff would have been justified in what lie
had done. If the Jury thought that William
John (the Plaintiff) was the person intended by the
writ, they would find a verdict for the Defeentaut,
stibject to the revision of the Court of King's
Bench hereafter. If the Jury did not think so, they
would find fur the Plaintiff, with such damages
as they thought proper. When the writ was de.
livered to the Sheriff, it was his duty immediately
to execute it. It recited a judgment ; but the
Sheriff was to take for granted, in the first instance,
that there was a judgment, or the greatest incon-
venience would be sustained—if, fur example, the
Sheriff of Cornwall were obliged to wait 611 doe
foci were certified from London. Ou the whole
the evidence this Jury woald say, whether iu '
this writ was issued against the Plaintiff; and,
the Verdict must be lor the Defendant, though
might hereafter be set aside.
The Jury consulted for some time, and utued
a verdict fur the Defendant.
inmates v. DUTTON.
This was ail actiou of assault. The P tiff
driver of the Wialthauntow stage-coach. L)
leudant, who resides at that place, was o null
a passesger therein. A dispute arose rest
parties, coneeruiug a sass of es. which the In-
alleged lb* Deteudaut owed his for the fat,
'elf and Mrs. Britton, but which the latter 4.
uffinuing that lie lead 'mid it. Some altercation
place ass the Pleintill reiterating his implicit'
payszeut ou the 6th December last, whcii tt
tiff was set down out of the coach near to
• 1100111. The Plaintiff said it was as hod
bevy, and thst the Defendant was cheating
which the Defendant came beck sod it,
across the Ilikbe with his umbrella.
The LoaD CHIEF JUSTICE left the question


.: ~:.-

_.•

r

. .
t ,iii that ,\ If. '
! whole of
tr in fact \
,I
and, if tat, • ii i
though at o
3il wind I n
tiff is
De.
' nuttily
ern the •
: 0
le Plaintiti
are of him-
-34
ter denied,
atiou took z
lication tur
the Plain-
to bus Olin
I es a rub-
g him ; o:i
truck law
Isestion of
:i, 1