The Sun.
London, England, 1801-12-11 00:00:00

Watchman. sees a. Gentleman in a Hackney Coact',
which was, driven, he did not know where. After.
wards, the Gentleman comes out of the Coach, ariil
takes away the Number of the Coach. Here the
Gentleman was wrong, he had no right to take
away the. Coachman's number. He carries this
number to the Watch-house, and _ the Coachman,
either remains where he was, or goes off, for there
is no evidence how that is. Afterwards; in conse-
quence of bad advice, at the Watch-house, the
Coachman is sent for, and 'the Gentleman remains
in the Watch:house with the Coachman's number.
Then the Coachman requires the Constable to take
him into custody, for taking the number of his
Coach. The Constable takes the charge down, as
he was hound to do, and he offers to take bail. The
Plaintiff in, this Action, writes a note to send for
bail. He afterwards tears the Paper, and refuses
to send for his bail. He goes to the. Compter. He
is afterwards, brought before the Magistrate, and
there he is discharged. The Coachman who Made
this charge is answerable, in. point of law, for that
charge ; and not being able to support that charge,
h 6 is, in point of law, a Trespasser ; but you will
deal with this cas' -as you think proper, as to
Damages ; but I think it is a very paltry case, on.
the part of the Plaintiff, I confess." •
Verdi& for the Defendant Taylor, and against
the Defendant Sitncoe----Damages One Penny, Costs
Forty Shillings. •
Certificate from the judge, that Defendant Tay-
lor was a Constable, atting in the execution of his
Office on the occasion, for which the Anion was
brought: •
This, upon the Statute, gives the Defendant
Taylor, Double Costs.

`COURT OF CONNIQN PLEAS, Dzc. 3:
iEFORE LOED ALVANLEY AND A SPECIAL PIXY.
BURNELL CI CARR.

This was an• A.aion against..the Defendant, as
Sheriff of Sussex, for the Tlegleft of his Officer in
not seizing, and in making_a false return that there
was, no property of the Marquis of Donegal's in
that County:

. It appeared, that in September 'Soo, an execu-
tion was issued agairiw the Marquis's property,, on
debts due to the Plaintiff, to the amount of near
zo,oeol.` That the Sheriff's Officer was put into
the house where the Marquis resided at Brighton,
which was a furnished one, and there seized some
plate and linen ; and that a coach, chariot, sociable,
and five coach and three .saddle horses.,'were seized
in some stables iii another part of -.the Town.,—.;
That-his Lordship cAme to Town, and entered in-
to a Deed of Covenant with. the Plaintiff, that he
would himself execute, and also endeavour to get
his Trustees to execute, a similar security to the
Plaintiff as had been done to some of the other cre-
ditors of his Lordship; and that in the mean" tithe .
lie 'should be allowed - the use of Ms carriage:eid
horses, his Lordship .promising, on his honour, that
he would not take them out of the county, and that
he would, if the- security should not be given,, re-
instate the Plaintiff in all those articles (which were
enumerated in the agreement) to be so restored for
:his use, as well as certain property which had been
seized by the Sheriff ofßli--s. A copy of this agree-
'tient was given to the Officer in possessw.,
accordingly permitted 114 Lordship the use. of the
property, but remained in his Lordship's house.—
On the zd of 'November, the business not 'being
settled,. another Writ was sued out upon the same
debt, and sent to the Officer at the Marquis's house,
with a letter from the Plaintiff's Attorney, stating,
that as a new writ was sued out, he was not to pay
attention to his former discharge, but to keep pos-
session as before, and that he -would
,meet With no
difficulty, as the Marquis was aware of this ar-
rangement. In a few days after, his Lordship,
with his family, quitted Brighton, taking 'away all
the property in question in the presence ofthe Offi-
cerewho, it did not appear, Made anyoppOsition:
- To prove the value of ti•kprOperty seized, his
Lordship's Coachm.ari was called, 'who swore he be,
lieved the coach-horses to be worth 4.51.,a horse,
hut-that though they were bought by the;Malquis's
head 'coachman, he-- understood ,they were, when at
Brighton, the property of Sutton; the Marquis's
"training-groom. •
- _The Marchioness's Footman was examined as
to the plate, and swore it consisted of sixteen tea-
spoons., twelve .table-spoons, a sugar bacon, a-tea-
pot, and some other articles. •
The Marquis' of Donegal was then called, and
sworn on the Bench. Lordship deposed, that
,neither the - horses alluded to, nor the carriages,
-though they had his Lordship's coronet and cypher,
'were his property. ;That in the month of Septern-
bet- he executed a Bill of Sale
,of the liOrses to Sut-
' tone his Traininte—Groorn, in part of a debt -he owed
/sins ofer 4001.. or
,t 'eool. and that he had agreed to
-allow hire 26°1. or t 701. a year 'for the Use of them,
but. : that they were -;et..l at his Lordship's expence.-
- That with respect to ,the carriages, they were ale
property of Mr.) Thompson, 4 eoachernaker in Mor-
timer-street. ,
Lord Ai.v Ameeev bete 'expressed much anxiety
to-see the Bill of Sale, and to have the Officer's di.
. charge produced.; bui neither of them were broughe
forward. '
The _counsel for the Defendant contended, that
the agreeinent between ihe Plaintiff and 'Defendant
keing.thatle•without.the privity of the Sheriff, toe;"
sr.vay'llis responsibility. The onlv!quesii-Ori':hat
_`maimed was, whether the second Vlrie,created a new
responsibility, whiCh svas -not afFeded by the letter
sent by thellain•tiff's t forney to tile Officer to keep
possessiOn.as &I've? t or, as he cordended, was merely
seat down, tfie'old Writ being returnable ? And as
it did. not • appear that intiniation- hail been
•' given to the Sheriff of
_this- - agreemene between the
Plaintiff and Defendant, it must be considered as a.
renewal of the old Wiii"; for it. was impossible to
• !, suppose that any yotleroan adingsas Sheriff would
have submitted r.tl Stich dangerous responsibility,
had he been acgte4tited.with the agreement i)etween
the Plaintiff and.Oefendant.
- Lord ALYAN'LItY
,said, 'it- appeared - from the
evidence of MitaSteverts, the Plaintiff's AttorneY,'
that .:when .he .del-ivered the Warrant to the She