The National Register.
London, England, 1811-08-25 00:00:00

KENT.

MAIDSTONE, AUG. 2.?,.—The Judges arrived yesterday in this
town, and immediately opened their Commission. This morn-
ing early they proceeded to business.

WALTON t'. BURTON.
This was an action against the late Sheriff of the County. for
not arresting a man agairst whom a writ was directed. by i;bich
tho laintih alleged that be had lost the.means of recovering his
debt.

Mr. Serjcant BEST, for the plaintiff, stated, that he had a,cause
of action ag,linst a person of the name of Moffatt, against uhoin
he sued out a writ. The Sheriff upon this verl granted his war-
rant to one of his officers, of the ;lime of Carter, who resided at
Maidstone. The person against whom the writ was directed,
namely Moffatt, lived at Mitten, about five macs from Maid-
stone. Instead of executing this warrant himself, Carter put tt
into the hands of his follower, of the name of iiroad, with ano-
ther person, named Wood, and 'they went to arrest Moffatt.
They did iind him, and took him into custody. for he could not
call it arresting him, in as much as it was not a legal arrest.
Moffatt, however, made them both dead drunk, and lie c,er,
unceremoniously took' his leave of them. It VMS .clplr, ?there-
fore, that the officer himself might haVe arrested Moffatt as well
as these men, on which case the plaintiff would probably have
obtained his debt, particularly as he should prove that Moffatt
bad property to a considerable amount taken'in execution after
this writ. The Learned Serjeatit then called witnesses, who
proved the existence of a debt of. 9A. and upwards, frcim Mof-
fatt to the plaintiff, and that a writ was sued out, upon which
a warrant was granted to Carter, the Sheriff's Officer, to arrest
Moffatt.
Wood, the follower, was nest called, who stated, that he ar-
rested Nicifatt, but that he Left them after hisnsilf and Broad
were inebriated.
•,
Carter was also called, who stated, that lie handed over 'Ms
v arrant to Broad to execute it, because he had other business ;
and he also proved, that a short time after lie levied an execution
on the goods of Moffatt for upwards of 5001.
Lord F.LLENBOROUGIi expressed great indignation at the con-
duct of the officer in putting his warrant into the hands of un.
authorised persons. He observed, that they were not justified
by the law in executing it, and in arresting the person of Mof-
fatt ; they were mere trespasses, and if it had happened that he
had resisted them, and killed one of them in that resistance, it
would at most have atnoutred• to manslaughter, not murder,
and might perhar have heen,justifiable honsicide. "'sliese were
the mischiefs which might have ensued from the misconduct of
• the officer. -tie hoped the Sheriff had good security fur the con-
duct of this officer.
• The Jury 'found a-verdict for the p'aintiff.
. CROWN SIDE.
•

David Loyd was indicted for personating James Boyle, an
out-pensioner of Greenwich Hospital, and receiving the out-
pension of the said James. Boyle, a seaman entitled to the out-
pension of Greenwich Hospital. The offence of personating
an nut-pensioner is made a ft.lony by a particular statute.
The prisoner, it ap.peared, kept, a public house in the Bo-
rough, and it was clearly proved by the .evidence of the officers
of the hospital, that in the month of June .last, when the out-
pen.,ioners were paid, the prisoner solsw•ithi to the name of
James Boyle, and presented himself as the person of James
Boyle, to receive thirty-five shillings due to him. He was how-
ever recognized as having answered to the name of another
man, and having received his pension. He was theretOre de-
sired to come into the clerk's room, and was examined as to
who be really was. He then stated that he had advanced money