The Sun.
London, England, 1839-09-05 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

LIVERPOOL, Farnrr.
NISI PRIUS COURT.
GISBORNE V. HART.
(The defendant in this Case complains that the report
published in The Sun of Tuesday is incorrect, and requests
that we will give the following account of the transaction,
which has appeared in the Liverpool Mail.)
Mr. Thomas Gisborne, M. P. for Carlow, was the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Wm. Hart, an attorney at Manchester, the
defendant in this action, which was brought to recover the
value of a promissory note for 221. I Is. 9d., payable at
two months.
Mr. Creswell and Mr. Martin for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Alexander for the defendant.

Mr. MAR;IN hav:4Opened the pleadings,
Mr. ALEXANDER stated the case for the defendant. His
client, Mr. Hart, did not deny that he gave the promissory
note, but says that he is relieved from liability by the fol-
lowing circumstances:—ln October, 1837, the plaintiff,
Mr. Gisborne, had brought an action against a person
named Harrison, an attorney, obtained judgment, and
the execution was put into the hands of Newton, the
Sheriff's officer at Manchester. Harrison was taken into
custody, and was detained at the Sheriff's office. It
being important that Mr. Harrison should be at liberty,
Mr. Hart applied for his liberation ; and on having
been given to understand that there was no other de-
tainer against Harrison, Mr. Hart gave the promissory
note for the sum mentioned—the amount of debt and costs.
Before handing the note to Brown, clerk to Mr. Chew,
the attorney in the case, Mr. Hart demanded that his
friend should be set at liberty. " No," said the clerk to
the sheriff's officer, " I must first have the security, and
then he shall be set at liberty." Mr. Hart replied, " Well,
I think I may trust to your honour," and he immediately
handed over the note to Brown. The assistant of New-
ton, whose name was Hockerhall, then said, " He can-
not go ; I have another writ against him." Mr. Hart
insisted that if Mr. Harrison were not set at liberty,
hh s e
h apdr ommaidsr rhy
mns
eoltfe r
e sshouldporis
blbee
forre tu
ther ne
sdo,
e purposeseeing
securing the liberation of Harrison. Brown refused to
give up the note, on which a struggle ensued between him
and Hart. The only witnesses that he (the Learned
personshCo opueuenid hds
thee) could
a dltbswhtebaah tetsoeeemtnhh aecatndbr
given
tsl
beenhhinboe bring
hrol
tfodany
engagedd d
btwhhmeaeear
enablededmxe to t
moment
ie prove
aensmns
the
tetaotsyhs
tthesetrsahttniaiatostbwna tchi
a.
test
heschi
oat
promissory
ro
nwHo;
meaebrr due si
their
he
the
on n.
lipsnshoot
dt
there
ew hwiacsh
ahneo
twh ae sr
writdetained,n
sbte
he
iamu s eo
nt ht ehye hadroad heard
sthteaat
Preston.

Mr. Newton, the sheriff's officer at Manchester, stated
that he was employed, in October, 1167, by Mr. Chew, to
take Mr. Harrison into custody at the suit of Mr. Thos.
Gisborne. He arrested Harrison on the 7th Oct, 1837.
Henry Hockenhall, clerk to Mr. Newton, stated that
when asked by Hart, previous to the giving of the promis-
sory note, whether there was any other detainer against
Harrison, he did not reply, because he did not think that
it was his duty to do so. At that time he did not
know whether or not there was any other detainer.
When Mr. Hart desired that Harrison should be allowed
to go outside of the door before the note was given,
Brown refused, saying that the note must first be given
up. Hart then gave up the note; Brown gave him the
discharge ; and Hart and Harrison were preparing to walk
out. Witness then told the latter that he must not go.
He told him that, in consequence of directions he had
received from Mr. Newton. Mr. Newton said that before
Ilarrison was discharged, he would have the court search-
ed. Witness had Harrison in custody. Hart then said,
" I must have back my note." Brown refused, and a
struggle took place, which continued for more than an
hour, and ended in Brown keeping possession of the note.
Harrison was kept in till the next day, when there came
another writ from Preston. Chew was the attorney in
the second writ as well as in the first. _ _ _

To the JUDGE—I believe that at the time Mr. Hart
gave the note, he would not have given it if he had thought
that there was another detainer against Harrison.
Mr. ALEXANDER having intimated that he would rest
his case upon this evidence.
Mr. CRESWELL wished to know from his Lordship
whether he was of opinion that there was anything to go
to the Jury
His LORDSHIP decided that there was,

Kll. C;;;;;LL, on behalf of his client, then went on to
contend that there was nothing to show that the note had
been obtained by Chew or his agent on a false or fraudulent
representation that there was no other detainer against
Ilarrison. If there had been any fraud it was most certainly
not on the part of the plaintiff, Mr. Gisborne, who was a
Member of Parliament for Carlow, and must therefore be a
respectable man. Mr. Creswell went on to show that by
law a sheriff's officer was bound to detain a person in cus-
tody when there were other detainers against him. If the
Sheriff enlarged the person when such was the case, he
himself became responsible for the debts of the liberated

person.
The Learned Judge having briefly summed up,
The Jury consulted for a few moments, and found a ver-
dict for the defendant.