The Sun.
London, England, 1831-11-25 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

At the sitting of the Court, Lord Lyndhurst gave judgment in
the case of the Attorney-General v. Jackson, which was argued
yesterday. The defendants were left an estate for themselves
and heirs, subject to an annuity of 5001. a year. The Crown
claimed the legacy duty on such annuity, amounting to 971. 10s.
It was argued that this was real property, and did not come
within the meaning of the Act, which imposed the duty.
The COURT were of a different opinion, and gave judgment
for the Crown.
BALNE AND ANOTHER v. HUTTON AND OTHERS.
In this case the Court also gave judgment. The plaintiffs are
assignees of a bankrupt, and the defendants the Sheriff of York-
shire, the High Bailiff; and the judgment creditor. An action Was
brought against them for a seizure which they made of the
goods of the bankrupt, after he had committed an act of bank.
ruptcy, but long before a commission was sued out against
him. The Court went at very great length into the merits of
the question, and considered all the cases on the iubject,
from the time of William and Mary to the present time. They
considered that the Sheriff was protected by his official charac-
ter, and was not to be made liable unless it could be proved
that the Commission had issued previous to the seizure, he
only acted in a Ministerial character under a writ directed to
him from a Court of Justice in the King's name, and it would
be no good return to such writ, for him to gay that the party
had committed an act of bankruptcy—of course what applied
to the Sheriff, also applied to the High Bailiff; for he was an
officer acting under the Sheriff. If this was not so, actions
might be brought against a Sheriff many years after he had
quitted the office, and there could be no saying how far this
might be carried. With the judgment creditor, the Court
were of opinion the case was different, as he acted not on
compulsion as the others did, but willingly and at his own
risk. They therefore were of opinion that the judgment
should be against Ingham, but in the cases of Hutton and
Jewison, the judgment should be for the defendants.
Mr. FARROW made an application on behalf of a person
named Capps, that he might be relieved from the payment of
401. for a forfeited recognizance. The affidavit stated that
Capps was bound in a recognizance of the above sum, to appear
and prosecute one Sarah Smith, at the Old Bailey, in 1825.
The deponent stated that he attended the whole of the Session
daily, and on the last day he saw the case in the paper in the
New Court, where he attended all day, and the case never came
on, but next day he found that it had been tried in the Old
Court, and the prisoner acquitted. He had seen the Recorder
on the subject, who promised that he Mould not allow the recog-
nizance to be estreated—but he appeared to have forgotten it.
The Court granted the application.
RULE OF COURT.
An order was read to-day which states that the office of the
Exchequer of Pleas shall be open during term and for a week
after, from eleven o'clock in the forenoon till three o'clock in the
afternoon, and from six till nine in the evening, at other times
to be open from eleven till four in the afternoon.

THE MARKETS.-(THIS DAY.)