The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-03 00:00:00

OLDINGIIALL V. LORD SOMERS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that in, this case, though
Mr. Wetherell had told him that the parties wished him to
judge as he pleased, the point was too important for him to
give judgment without hearing Counsel.

N TIIE MATTER OF DICKENSON, HODGSON, AND DICK-
, ENSON, BANKRUPTS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR had only time to state in part
the nature of this "very cOinplicated"case. In 1810 a commis-
sion of bankrupt had been issued against Edward Wickham
Dickenson. The assignees were Horsfall and another. In
1811, a commission of bankrupt had been issued against James
Richard Hodgson. The assignees were John Jones and ano-
ther. In 1811 too, a commission of bankrupt had been issued
against Joseph Dickenson. The assignee was It. Evans. In
the year 1816 a petition had been presented,' stating..that E.
W. Dickenson and J. R. Hodgson had been partners in busi-
ness in Liverpool; that in 1805, the two Dickensons had been
partners in trade to -Rio Janeiro ; and that there had been three
partnerships—Dickenson and Hodgson ; Dickenson and Bro-
thers; and Dickenson, Brothers, and Co. Joseph Dickenson
had received a certificate in his life-time. Very complicated
questions had thence arisen respecting " the claims of creditors
upon the separate and the joint estates. It was aquestion whe-
ther Joseph Dickenson's certificate barred demands against him
and his assets, and whether the whole administration under
the several commissions ought to be made one, or whether the
Court would disturb it or not, all having acted under a com-
mon error. .Joseph Dickenson had brought 16,0001. from Rio
Janeiro, which his assignee, instead of bringing to the joint
account, had brought to his separate account. This Court
had made an order in August, 1819, which meant that in-
spectors should be appointed to inquire into the interests of the
petitioners. This order had been very improperly trifled with
between that time and September, 1821. His Lordship. con-
cluded with expressing a hope, that at the next attendance in:.
Court he should bury this case for ever.
His Lordship said he would give notice to-morrow if lie
could attend on Weduesday.

COURT .OF KING'S BENCH, DEC. 2.
RICHARD CARLILE v. - PARKINS, ESQ.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover from
the defendant, one of the late Sheriffs of 11Iiddlesex and Lon-
don, a compensation for the alleged injury he had sustained
by the Sheriffs having retained his property in their hands, in-
stead of selling the same, as directed by the Court.
The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. SCARLET r and
Mr. Joslttra EVANS ; and the defendants by Mr. HENUY
Coortn. and Mi. ARCHBOLD.

Mr SCARLETT stated the case on behalf of the plaintiff; Mr.
Carlile, who, by this action, sought to recover a compensation
' in damages for the injury he had sustained by the conduct of
the late Sheriff, the present' defendant. He had no knowledge
of Mr.-Carlile personally,_ but he had .heard much of.him.—lle,
had no doubt that the Jury had also' heard much of that indivi-
dual. He should, however, endeavoUr to conduct this cause as
if he had never heard the . name of Mr. Carlile before, and he
had no doubt the Jury would discharge their duty in the same
way. In his opinion, unless the Jury this day found a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, a precedent highly dangerous tattle liberty
of the subject would be established. If an individual was for any
' offence sentenced to fine and imprisonment by the Court of.
King's Bench, he could not believe that the Court ever intended,
or the law would tolerate, that a'Sheriff should so exercise the
power which the law gave him in such a case as to entail on
the defendant ruin and imprisonment for life, by the seizure
and detention of his property until the expiration of the
term of imprisonment—and, having done se, then say, " Now
take your resources, and manage them for yourself." Mr.
Sheriff Parkins had so acted in the present case. He had
detained the property of Mr. Carlile in his hands in the man
ner now described.' The plaintiff, as the Jury well knew,
had been found guilty of publishing certain libels, for which
he had been sentenced to three years imprisonment, and to pay
a heavy fine., Immediately after the judgment a writ of levw'i
facial was issued by the Court to the Sheriff; directing him to
levy the fine of 1,0001. on the defendant's property. This writ
was issued on the 15th of NoVember, and, as he should now
contend, the Sheriff ought to have sold immediately, and with-
out delay ; instead of which what did the Sheriff's do ? 'Why,
according to their own return to the Court, which he would
read, they said, that in compliance with the writ. directed'to
them, they had proceeded to sell the property of Richard Car
lile, and had sold so much as produced 54/. of which sum they
had paid 241. for King's taxes due on the house inhabited by
Mr. Carlile. The other 301. remained in their hands ready to
be applied as the Court should direct. They then proceeded to
return that the remainder of the stock of the shop was still in
their hands, and that they waited the direction of the Court
how they were to dispose of it. The Court by its writ said
" we direct your. to sell and not to retain the stock ;" 'but the
Sheriffs replied that amongst the stock there were copies of pub..
lications which had been declared libels ; suppose there were,
Was that any excuse for the Sheriff retaining the whole stock in
theirhands ? Why, amongst these libels, as they were called,
were twenty-five copies of 1)r. Watson's Defence of the Bible—
a most excellent work. There were other works equally unex-
ceptionable and valtiable: - The whole stock was worth not less
than 3,0001.; had it been sold then ' • there was a valuable stock
of periodical publications, which, had they
:been sold at that
time, would have produeed a very considerable Sum' but having
been now-detained and locked up by the Sheriffs for' 3 years,
was worth nothing except for waste paper: He contended,
that even supposing there had been some libellous works
amongst this stock, tie Sheriffs ought to have sold all 'which
were not so. If the conduct which had been adopted by the
defendant could be justified, what would be the situation of any

booksellei convicted of any offence which subjected him to fine
and imprisonment? There was not a bookseller's stock in ex-
istence in which some work might not be found which a Sheriff
might not construe to be libellous. For instance, any volume
of Hume's History of England," or any volume of Poems on
Metaphysics, or Historical Works, would furnish what might
constitute libel on some one living or dead, in the estimation of
a Sheriff; and enable him to detain the stock of an individual all
the period of his imprisonment, and so reduce it in value, as
had been done in this case, that at the expiration of the indivi-
dual's-imprisonment, although at its commencement it might-
have been worth ten times the sum, it would not produce suf-
ficient to pay his fine, and he be thus, as Mr. Carlile was,
utterly ruined, and reduced to imprisonment for life. He con-
cluded by again calling on the Jury to decide in this case as if
they had never heard of the name of Carlile ; and he was con-
vinced they would then find a verdict compensating him for the
injury he had sustained.
Mr. HAYWARD, Solicitor to the plaintiff; put in the writ of
levari facias, and the return of the Sheriffs, stating, that they
had levied and sold to the amount of 54/. of which they- had
paid 241. for taxes, that the remaining 301. they retained
-in, their hands waiting the directions of the Court. The re-
turn further enumerated the stock still retained by them in
their hands, which they knew not how to dispose of, consisting
of numerous copies, of the Republican, Tom Paine's Works,
Copies of the Mock Trial, of the Black Book, of Sherwin's Re-
gister, of Cobbett's Register, Letters to Canning, Letters to Sir
Charles Abbott, Charles Phillips's Speeches, Cobbett's Gram-
mar, Common Sense, Gale Jones's Speech, &c.
Cross-examined—Knows Mr. Carlile's shop ; there were cer-
tain inscriptions over and within side the shop ; " The Temple
of Reason" was within aide the shop ; don't recollect whether
there was such an inscription as " Office or Repository for the
Sale of Republican and Deistical Works," or, " Office for the
Sale of The Republican and The Deist." The letters now
handed. in are in the hand-writing of the plaintiff:
Mr. ARCHBOLD here objected, that as the judgment of the
Court was not put in and proved, the writ of kvari facia: could
not be received in evidence.

Mr. SCARLETT—I will save my friend trouble on this point,
I have a count for taking the goods in trover.
Mr. ARCI4BOLD—That, my Lord, would put the plaintiff
out of Court.

The CHIEF JUSTICE', on looking at the record, over-ruled
the objection. The judgment of the-Court was sufficiently
proved by the rule of Court for issuing the writ.
Charles Brown deposed that he was placed in the care of the
plaintiff's shop on the •16th of November,, the same day the
plaintiff was brought up for judgment. Hopwood, the She-
riff's Officer, was the person who came in andlook possession
anho shop, and all that was in it. Mr. llopwood sealed the
parlour door; and the shop door in front was bolted-inside. It
remained in that state six or seven weeks. The books he re-
moved, the household, furniture was sold. Witness was in the
shop after Hopwood quitted 'possession ; every thing was re-
moved except the shelves and counters.
Cross-examined—The shop was- open all day till the even-
ing—Does not recollect the inscription " The Temple of Rea-
son, or Office for the sale of the Republican and Deist," but
thinks they might be up. Hopwood came into possession about
four or five o'clock. He-took possession of all the books, in the
shop.
James Griffiths deposed that he had seen the schedule of the
stock, and calculated the value, with the exception of a few
books. Those he valued amounted to 1,4401. with a few excep-
tions they were now worth nothing except for waste paper.
Cross-examined—Can't calculate what they would be worth
to sell in a mass; he valued them at retail price—can't say how
long they would have taken to sell by retail, perhaps two years,
but understood they had a rapid sale—knows that some of the
" Republican" had been prosecuted as libels. There were
several copies of the " Age of Reason," and " Palmer's Prin-
ciples of Nature," which had been declared libels. Did value
" The God of the Jews," and all the rest—did not calculate
what they would be worth as waste paper, or what they would
have cost to re-print. Did not read any of the books—did not
read " Physical and Metaphysical Inquiries"did not sell it
himself—can't say he ever saw' any of it for sale any where but '
at Carlile's—read Wat Tyler," thinks it a beautiful poem—
believes there was no copy-right of that work, it was published
by so many different booksellers—had read some numbers of ;
the " Deist," all those which he had read were harmless—had
read " Diderot's Thoughts," but it was so long since he had
forgotten them. He valued " Volney's Ruins and Philosophi-
cal Thoughts,"—is a bookseller in Middle-row, Holborn, in a
general way.
Re-examined—Those articles which had been prosecuted
for libels to conviction he omitted in his valuation—" Millar's
Philosophical Enquiries," and " Diderot's Thoughts," are
books of general sale. 44 Wat Tyler" has never been prose-
cuted. Witness valued the bust and statue of Paine, but not
the pedestal.' The Bishop of Landaff's " Defence of the
Bible" had never been prosecuted ; the greater part of the
works in the inventory were works wholly unexceptionable.—
Witness never saw Mr. Cathie but once.

Mr. COOPER submitted-to his Lordship whether this action
would lie. This was an action for the difference of value be-
tween the stock now and two years and a half ago. The
Sheriff not having Old under the writ of levari facias, he sub-
mitted it was doubtful whether the Sheriff was bound to sell
under a levari facias, unless the plaintiffhad applied for a vett-
ditioni exponas, and he not having done so, no attachment
would lie against the Sheriff; and it had been decided, that
where an attachment would not go an action would not lie ; and
therefore he contended that the present action would not lie,
and plaintiff must be nonsuited. „
Mr. AncimoLD, on the same side, said it was extremely
doubtful whether the Sheriff had any, right to sell under a
levari facias, until a writ venditioni eaponas was directed to
him. It was quite clear, that under a writ of fi. fa. the
Sheriff was not bound to sell; it was sufficient for the Sheriff
to return the goods in his possession, for want of purchasers.
Mr. COOPER also submitted, that this being an action on
the case against the Sheriff; it was necessary to prove malice; or
the action could not be maintained.

The CIuEF JUSTICE said, the declaration in this case
charged the defendant, as Sheriff, with having delayed to sell
goods, the property of the plaintiff, which he had in his posses-
sion, with a view to injure the plaintiff, he having retained them
in his-possesiOn for a length of ,time, 'and thereby 'deteriorated
their value. Now, if a Sheriff did so retain the goods in his
possession, with such a motive as that imputed to the defendant
•in this case, an action would lie. Whether the defendant did
act under the feeling imputed to him was a question of fact
-which he would not wit...draw from the consideration of the
Jury by nonsuiting the plaintiff. •
Mr. COOPER then proceeded to address the Jury on the part
of the defendant with his usual ability. He, like his Learned
Friend, disclaimed all knowledge of his client. He protested
against the doctrine of the Advocate being mixed up with the
client. An Advocate was bound to perform his duty to his client,
let that client be whom he might. He desired, that the Advocate
should stand on his exertions for his client, and his client on the
merits of his case. Whenever such 'should tease to be the case,
there would be an end of all security for liberty in this country,
and the sooner a man left it the'better. Having said thus much, •
he would proceed to his defence ; and, first, he contended that a
knowledge of the case should be brought home to the defendant.
In this case, he contended, that had not been done. Mr. Parkins
had not only; as Sheriff, objected to Mr. Colhrgridge, the Se-
condary, acting for him, but had absolutely protested against his
s'o_doing; and 111 r. Collingridge was conscious of this, because he
had requested a Gentleman to apply to -Mr. Parkins, for the
purpose of inducing him. to consent to his appointment ; but
Mr. Parkins never would acquiesce, and, in consequence of his
refusing to do so, his accounts had not yet been passed, as he
could not conscientiously assent to the acts of Mr. Collingridge,
against which he had always protested. NoW Hopwood acted
under the direction of Mr. Collingridge, and whatever Hop-
wood did Mr. Collingridge was answerable for.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said,' he did not see how that eircum-
stance—if it did exist—could be made evidence in this 'case,—
Here. was a return on the files bf the Court, purporting to be a
return 'of the Sheriffs. If that return had been improperly put
there, the Sheriff's might move to have it taken off—but, as
it remained there, he must look at it as the return of the Sheriffs.

Mr. COOPER resumed—The next point would be that which
he had put to his Lordship on the necessity of malice on the part
of the Sheriff's being proved. His Lordship had said that that
was a question for the Jury. He would go boldly to the Jury
on that point. Mr. Carlile, though in Dorchester Jail, well
knew what was going on ; he knew the Sheriffs were not
selling, and he did not wish they should, or he would have ap-
plied to the Court-to force them to sell; but the fact was, Mr.
Carlile did notvisli • to have these works sold in a mass; he
desired to
.sell them separately. Malice had been charged
against the Sheriffs as their motive ; Mr. Bothwell was dead,
but he had never heard it charged against him that he had any
malice against Mr. Carlile; and as to Mr. Parkins, he disdain
ed the charge.. The fact Was, that the Sheriffs had only acted
with due submission to the law as it at present stood ; here was
a bookseller's stock consisting of convicted libels and suspected
publications, and the -Sheirffs wertresponiihle for the sale of
them ; and notwithstanding the opinion of his Learned Friend,
Mr. Scarlett, to the contrary, he would boldly say that the She-
riffs would not have been protected had they sold these libellous
Works. His Learned Friend had said, that 'seeing the work,
" An Apology for the Bible' amongst the stock might have re-
moved the doubts of the. Sheriff. Perhaps not. It was said that
his late Majesty, on this work beingpresented to him, exclaimed,
"An apology for the Bible ! Why the Bible wants no apology."
The Sheriffs might have fallen into the same mistake as to the
nature of this work. He contended that there was not the
slightest ground for imputing malice to the defendant. All the
Sheriff had done was to act with caution, and a due. respect to
the law. The plaintiff also might at any time have forced them
to a sale—he had not ; therefore if he had sustained a loss, he

had been himself consenting to it ; and a man consenting to a
loss could not afterwirds recover against another for that loss.

The next point he would go to was—mitiption of damages.—
Many of these publications were periodica4 and lost the value
as much in a day or two as they would in a year. Others of these
works were declared libels; and others carried libels on the face of
them; ," 'SVat Tyler" for instance,which one of the witnesses had
described as a most beautiful poem, but which, in his opinion,
was a most contemptible production, and which had been de-
clared a libel by the Lewd Chancellor, and out of the protection of
the law ; so also as regarded the " Age of Reason," and others of
these publications ; and how could the Sheriffs come to the Court
for instructions on such a subject as this ? As to the selling them
immediately, he was certain Mr. Carlile, when he should sell
these works by degrees, would get much more for them under all
the disadvantages complained of, than he would have got by
the immediate sale, forced as it would have been under all the
disadvantages of a sale by auction. An instance of the little
money which the most popular works would fetch under such
circumstances, was to be found in a sale of pamphlets which
belonged to Mr. Hone, who being about to change his residence
lately, had found it convenient to sell a large stock of popular
works by auction, when books, which had been selling previ-
ously and gradually at seven shillings each, fetched no more
than thirteen pence. Under all these circumstances he was so
fully persuaded of the impossibility there was of a Jury finding
a verdict for the plaintiff; that he would abstain from his first
intention, which was to have called witnesses, and leave the
case with these observations in their hands.

The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up to the Jury, and repeated,
that if a Sheriffdid wilfully and wrongfully abstain from selling
goods in his possession, with an intention to injure a party, as
in this case alleged, then he would be liable to an action ; but
if he had reason and probable cause for keeping the property,
then he would be justified in doing so. It was a question for
the Jury to decide on which of these motives the present de-
fendant had acted. They would take the schedule into their
hands, and upon a cool and impartial consideration of the
works enumerated therein, and the nature of them, they would
say whether, in their opinion, there was on the face of it ground
to justify the defendant on the grounds of well-founded caution
in refraining from selling; if they should be of that opinion,
they would find for the defendant ; if of a contrary opinion, for
the plaintiff, with such damages as they considered equal to the
justice of the, case.
At 20 minutes past twelve the Jury retired, and, after being
out an hour, they came into Court with an application to his
Lordship for information as to the lowest sum in damages which
would carry costs.
The CHIEF-JUSTICE observed, that in this case any da-
mages, however small, would carry costs; but the Judge had
the power of certifying, in which case he regulated the costs.—
The safest course for the Jury to pursue, however, in this and
all other cases, was to give a verdict upon the case itself, and
its peculiar circumstances, without at all attending to con-
sequences.
The Jury again retired, and returned in about a quarter of
an hour with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, one shilling,
costs, 40s. _ _ _ _ _

Mt. COOPER—I hope your Lordship will certify.
The CatEr-JusTicr.--That can be done at any time, Mr.
Cooper; I will consider of it :At present Ido not think shall.

SANDERSON AND WIFE V. BARKER.

This was an action brought by Mr. and Mrs. Sanderson, \for
an assault committed on the latter by the defendant, and for an
unjust detention of her in confinement for some hours. The
defendant pleaded first that. he was not guilty ; and secondly a
special plea, setting forth that a cap had been stolen from his
shop, and that he had reasonable grounds to suspect the female
plaintiff of the felony. The case on behalf of the plaintiffs was
conducted by Mr. SCAItbETT and Mr. Cut TT Y ; and the de-
fence by Mr. GURNEY and Mr. COMYN.

It appeared in evidence that Mr. Sanderson went to the shop
of Mr. Barker, who is a haberdasher in' Holborn, and asked to
look at several articles. She apparently fixed on a cap, and then
requested to see other goods, but ultimately refused to take any
alledgiifg that she had no money in her pocket. Mr. Barker
insisting that she should at least take the cap, sent one of his
shopwomen to follow her home with it ; in the mean time his
wife told him that she missed a cap, and he sent to Mrs. San-
derson to request she would come to his house, as the article was
gone. She returned with the messenger, denied the charge, and
on some one coming into the shop, was asked to walk up stairs,
to which she acceded. Here Mr. Barker advised her to write
to her friends, furnished her with materials, and sent his servant
with her letter. Her father and brother came, when some con-
versation took place, which was variously stated ; those indivi-
duals representing the conduct of Mr. Barker as very offensive,
and two of his shopwomen describing it as very civil and cour-
teous. Mrs. Sanderson requested to be searched, but this was
'refused for some time; at last she was searched and ultimately
dismissed without charge, two of her friends having vouched for
the respectability of her connexions.
The LORD CHIEF JusTicE -told the Jury that the justifica-
tion could not be supported ; because no private individual
could justify detaining another on suspicion of a crime, unless he
could show that a crime was committed by some one; but here
there was no proof that any cap was stolen, or even lost. They
would, therefore find a verdict for the plaintiffs, with such da-
mages as they should think dispassionately the case demanded.
The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs—Damages 50/.

COURT OF' COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 2.
sTußss V. MAY. AND DUFFIELD.

Mr. Serjcant VAUGHAN stated, that this was an action for
an excessive distress for rent. The plaintiff was a maker of re-
volving heels, and the defendant-(May) was his landlord; Duf-
field was the broker employed by May, and he was charged in
the declaration, which contained a variety of counts, with hav-
ing improperly and vexatiously levied the distress, by seizing the
implements of the plaintiff's trade, and by selling them at a de-
teriorated value. The damages were laid at 3001.
Lloyd, the auctioneer,' was the first witness called.
He stated, that he had sold the goods, which he described as
being inferior in value to the estimate put on them by the
plaintiff.

Cross-examined.---The first sale produced 351. 35., but that
arose from the conduct of the plaintiff and a friend, who mate-
rially raised the price by bidding for articles, which they after-
wards declined paying for ' • the produce of the second sale was
231. Is. 2d. ; witness was brother-in-law of Duffield, one of the
defendants in this cause; witness had a partner, whose name
was Duffield, but he was not the defendant, but his brother.
The rent for which the distress was levied was rather more
than 201. The produce of the sale did not clear the expences
of the distress after paying the rent.
Other witnesses were called to prove a tender of the amount
of the goods to the defendant Duffield, and to state what were
the goods then on the plaintiff's premises, besides his working
utensils, which had been seized, and which they described as
being nearly of the value of 2001.
. _

lla Serjeant PELL, for the defendant Duffield, contended
that nothing improper had been. proved against him. He had
seized the implements of the plaintiff's trade because the other
goods were not of sufficient value to cover the distress ; and
even when these implements were included in the sale, the pro-
duce was only 231., though some of the witnesses had ventured
to say they were worth nearly 2001.
➢lr. Serjeant Hut.Loc fort& defendant May, insisted that
the distress was legal in itself, and if it had been conducted im-
properly by the broker, that would not affect the landlord.
Mr. Justice PARK charged the Jury, who, after a long con-
sultation, returned a verdict for the defendants.