The National Register.
London, England, 1822-12-09 00:00:00

dt VII)N:N DS.

Dec. 14, T. Lynn, JerusaleMC4,ehouse,Cornhill, merchant
—l4, H. Thompson and T. k'araultee How, Huthethithe,
w tklercinuu.-7, J. Hassell. ItLehurd Street, Islington, print
bener-31,1'. I3sakin and T. Dyer, Iliimingham, dealers-26,
.1. Knight, 11./21017 under Needwooo, Staltimishire, draper-2N,
.1. H. lietuam, Anther): Nice, Finsbury Square, merchant-7,
J. Hunter, Barge Yaid. Budd.rsbmy, merchant—). J. Urr.
Barge Yard, Buckler.buty, merchant.-Jan.lo, W. Kemp, Bath,
banker.

LAM lATELLICiENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
MOSDAY, DEC. 2.
bejuts the Lull! Chief Jaialite.)
CAttLILE V. PARRINS.

This action was hrim4ht by Ricbard Cathie against the defen-
dant, one of the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, to recover
• compensation for loss sustained, in consequence of not selling
certain books v,bi h We Sheriffs seized under a writ of lerviari
jacias, in plyment of a due imposed un the plaintiff by this
court.

Mr. Scarlett stated the circumstances to the Jury. It was
tin action brought by the plaimilt against the defendant, as
.ate Of the late Sheriffs of London, to recover compensation in
4141118ga-is for a loss sustained by the plaiutitf.o consequence of
t i.e latter Lae ing negie,oed to sell certain property, seized by
boil under a writ of lailior i fit;i4ts, issued from this court iii
November, Ibl'. The simple question fur their coosideratioe
end determination was, wbether‘the Sheriff had a right to seize
the property of the plaintiff— to Jeep the property in his own
1. 1.....5, and never brio' it to sa!e, thus depriving the ualurtunate
loan of those iesoorces to which be looked for the liquidation
11.1 a hoe to which be bad been sentenced, and consigning him
t•. prison for life. He bid received sentence of imprisonment
two years, and was also ordered to pay a hue of 1,0001.
a... 1 to be further imprisoned till such fine he paid. Inoue
i:itately on the passing of this sentence a writ of lussiori facia,
se es issued, directed to the then Sheriffs, Mr. Bothwell, who had
since died, and Mn. Parkins. the present defendant. In orderthat
toe July might see the duty which Cats writ imposed, he would
now tase the liberty of reading it. It cumananded the said
Sheriff: the goods amid chattels,and teneinents of iticli.rd Carlile
1,.) state, stud to cause to be levied thereon the suns of 1,0001.
se high it further commanded theta to bring into court, at 11 est-
viiiister, before a certain day in the ensuing term. Under this
M. at time duty of the Sheriffs was plain and simple. They ought
h.ive laid bold of the property of Mr. Carlile—have cunt es led
it into money, and have paid that mosey into court at the time
stipulated.—Tbey had nu business to exercise any sort of judg-
hielat us to whether it was propel to sell or taut to sell :—They
had nu right to exercise any discretion of their own. HI this
instance the Slienffs pi oceeded to take the whole of this man's
piopem ty. They afterwards sold a very small portion of it, and
time remainder they kept in their possession tiff the present mo-
ment. The return which they made to the writ of leisimri fueuts
was this," Toey bad levied certain goods and chattels mat Richard
Cathie, amid sold some fur 541. ls.-211. Gs. of which they had
paid for two gnat tern d iekVll, ■std 31. 4s. fur expence of
ale. The rest piffle goods (they added) they did nut feel
niselves justified in selling, and they remained in their hands
to be disposed of as the court should direct." Amongst other
vs marks were 23 copies of the Bishop of Llaudall's Defence of
toe. Bahia, than which a more pious or a more useful work in
support of the Christian religion did nut exist. It was an answer
in fact to the celebrated work of Thomas Paine, and contained
ar:unieuts of the purest ■nd most unobjectionable nature.—
There were several other works squally free from question, and
the whole was of the value of two thousand parotids, had they
been sold at the time of seizure. Haring retained the
:overly in his own hands, and hating thereby deprived the
plam.itt of the means of paying time penalty imposed upon him,
I.e t Mr. S.) felt a confident hope that the Jury would, by their
vet diet, 'liter loin that he had acted in oppusitiou to ht► own
interests as well as to the law of time land.

Mr. Hayward the pl‘intili 's attorney. was then railed, and
produced so elLaitotted copy of the writ oi laviari facias,
cireetvd to the defendant, and also a city of his return.

Chiorles Brown poled the baltllfe of the plaintiff's property
in November, 1819.
Mr. Janice Griffiths, bookseller, had examined the schedule
annexed to the !Olefin's return, and valued the books there
described at 14401. He excluded in this tolnation the works
which hod been prosecuted us libellous. Many of these *mks
were celebrated in the annals of 11;eiitrue, awl were to he
found in every huokseller's shop in Lonro.. This was the
plaintilrls Case.

Mr. H.Cooper add d the Jury on the part of the defen-
&tut, contending that the plaiutill hail no tight to recover, as
to he kid laid Ly without taking any steps, %OHM, he ought to
Lave done, to accelerate t.e ale by the Shetill". The eu iiiiii on
iid ordinary proceeding in midi a (*SC was to ripply to the court
for the writ Venda/tone eapcarts, which would hate compelled
the :theta, to NO.
Nu v., nra,es were calh,d for the defendant.

The Chief Justice t 4 .1.1 tht Juo, th.a sr the Sherili delayed a
salt, %beech! the goods weer deteriorated in value, lie was
unduubteftly linl.le io an action, unless rcaannable cause could
bc an folbutue to sell. It wan lot the

THE NATIONAL Ri

rISTER

Jury to decide, looking at the schedule of the works, wheth I.:
'there was such reasonable ground.
The Jury retired, and returned a verdict foe the plaintiff—
ighD es, oaf skating.; Suagl:tift,l shillings. %,
fiCetrr m W AMMAN AND WILLIAMS.
This action was brought against the defendants, who filled the
Ohm. of Sheriffs of London and Middlesex in Inlo, to recover
a loss sustained by neglect, on the part of the Sheriff's officer,
to take good securities to a replevin bond.
The plaintiff, • broker, WAS employed by a Indy, named
Woolf, to deatrain at premises occupied by a Mr. Magrath, in
Widbee.k-street, for arrears of rent, amounting to 221. The
goods were accordingly uistrained to the amount of 701. and
the defendant sued out a replevin. The plaintiff having traversed,
obtained judgment for Mrs. Woolf. He then applied to the
Sheriff's officer for delivery of the good., or the bond taken by
the defendants. They handed over the bond, having Mr.
Haynes, a tide-waiter, at fuer shillings per day, wages, and
Mr. Mabberley, coach-maker, securities to the amount of HRH.
The plaintiff refused to take bond, considering the securities not
in a state of solvency, and brought this action.
Several witnesses proved that Mr. Mahherley's credit was
not good soon after his name was attached to the bond.
Mr. Marryatt, for the defendant contended that the Sheriff's
officer Gill, who teJk the bond, bad no reason to suppose, in
11119, that Mr. Matibeley's credit was laid, and therefore he
was justified in taking the bond.
The Lord Chief Justice held, that if a Sheriff's officer does
not nee diligence in taking good securities to a bond, the
Sheriff is liable.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 701.
TIM KING V. BUST.
This was an indictment against the defendant, for assaulting
Henry Augbfie, on the eleventh of April last.
According to the evidence the prosecutor, who bad some
dealing with the defendant in the corn line, went to hie shop in
Holborn, where Burt carries on the business of a maker of
straw bonnets. He saw him in a back parlour. Aughtie said be
wanted a proper bill ; there was something wrong opal the
face of that which he had. The defendant then took him by the
collar and violent.y drove him out to the street under the hack-
ney coaches. The witness got up again, went to the door, and
said, "Is this all I get when I apply for my right 1" The
defendant then seized him again, and struck him several blows
in various parts of the body. His mouth bled, and be was so
much injured that lie could not follow his business for seven
weeks; he was obliged to walk with a stick. The defendant
was as big a man as Gregson the boxer.
Cross-examined by Mr. Andrews.—He was sober. He did
not say, " Tom Burt, you are a awindler." He did not put
himself in a fighting posture, nor accuse the defendant of be-
longing to an infernal gang in Bridge street.
John Jones, a porter at th.: George and Blue Boar, said he
saw the defendant pushing the prosecutor into the street. The
prosecutor fell, and the defendant lell on him. He did not hea
Aughtie use any abusive language.
Mr. Andrews addressed the Jury for the defendant, and con-
tended his client was justified in what be had done.
Elizabeth York, the defendant's set vent, proved that Aughtie
was drunk when he came into the shop. He asked for a proper
hill. The defendant told him to go to his aline and examine
the books. Aughtie called Lim a cheat and a scoundrel, and re •
fused to go oat when ordered to leave the house. He went up
to the tea table, and struck the defendant. Mr. Bart then took
him by the collar and turned him out of the parlour into the
shop. The prosecutor was afterwards into the strett.
Garlic, the defendant's shopman, endliettred to prove that
Aughtie bad made him promise to give a false account of the
transaction, saying, lie would make him a present for so doing.
The witneins added, that lie signed • paper, (produced) which
was dictated by Aughtie. He however, declared the whole
contents of the paper to be false.
The witness was severely censured by the Judge for signing
what he knew to be lase.

Aughtie heing called again, declared that he had never dic-
tated the contents of the paper. The Jury found the defendant
guilty.

WEDNESDAY, DEC. 4.
COOPER V. GARRAT, ESQ. D ANOTHER.

.
This was an action by the plaintiff, a coach-maker, residing in
Oxford-street, against the late Sheriffs of London and
Mid-
dlesex.

It appeared that the plaintiff bad let to hire, in May, 1820,
■ batuuclie to a man named Ashby, a stable-keeper, against
whom ao execotion having issued, this carriage a as taken along
with Ashby's goods. and sold by auction, notwithstanding no-
tice had been given by the plaintiff to the auctioneer that the
carriage:was his property.
Evidence was called to prove tbet Ashby hal hired the car-
riage. and bad made stveral payments on account. The Jury,
tinder his Lordship's direction, found a verdict for the plaintiff
—Damages, 211.105.