The Sun.
London, England, 1802-11-18 00:00:00

PRkVILEGE FROM ARREST.

A Rule had been obtained by Mr. LAws, on the
behalf of Sir Robert Stewart, calling- on the Plain-
tiff, at whose suit he was arreAd, to spew cause
why he should not -.be- discharged, on filing com-
Mon bail ; and why the .Attorney who had lodged
a detainer against Sir Robert Ste Wart, should not
pay. the costs of this application. It appeared that
Sir Robert Stewart came from Scotland for the pur-
pose of attending an Arbitrator in London, as a.
Witness, in-a cause which had been- referred.
arrived on tile 23a of the last month; on the 24. th,
in the morning, he was arrested, which was an
illegal arrest, inasmuch as he was privileged on-
account of'being a Witness attending. to give his
evidence in a cause. In the afternoon of the :Jame
day, a detainer-was lodged against him. at. tile suit
of another Plaintiff; by leaving a bailable writ, -
in the usual way, at die Sheriff's Office. This was
done by another Attorney, who knew nothing of
the. first-arrest ; and the question was, Whether-he
was'entitled to be discharged out of custody upon
the second arrest, as well as the first ?

Mr. HOVEL •contended, that the purpose for
which this Gentleman- cnme, was over, and that
the Plaintiff lodged, in due form of law, his writ,
.the operation of which was to detain the Tie-
fendtrnr. That it was indifferent to the Plaintiff
how he happened to be in the custody of the Sheriff;
it was enoughior the Plaintiff to find him there ;
the Plaintiff, in this Fast adion, being no party to
the first' arrest, nor knowing any thing-of it. That
the distindion was this—lf the Plaintiff, in the
second action had been .privy to the first, and avail.
ed himself of the illegal attest, in order to detain
him upon the second action, it would have been an
illegal ad to detain him ; but here the Plaintiff in
the second action knew nothing of the first, and
therefore the operation of law was,' that being"in
the custody of the Sheriff at the rime this writ
was left in the Of it operated as a detainer
against him. It had been laid down by Mr. Jus-
tice Bite ER, in a case where a Prisoner was super-
setlable, but not adually suiersededi that a de-
tainer against him was good, for although at the
time of lodging the' detainer; the Defendant was
entitled•fo his dis Charge, yet it was a matter per-
feCtly indifferent to the Plaintiff, he. found him in
custody,-.and the operation of law was, that he
must there rethairefor bail, if a detainer was lodged
against him. •
Mr. LA:ws contended for this proposition, 46 That
as the first arrest of this Gentleman was illegal,
nothing that was built 'upon 'that arrest could be
legal. But supposing that the.first arrest had never
taken place, Rbbert Stewart would have been
privileged from the -second, since he had not been
guilty of any dday return home after he had
been attending the Arbitratori'
Lord E.I.LENIIbROUGH said, there was no doubt
that a Witness attending to' give his evidence in a
Cause before an Arbitrator, was as much. privileged
from arrest as if "attending in. the same charader
before -3 'Court of Justice.; and that he_could not
become liable to arrest in his, way home, unless he
had been guilty of delay..—Here it did not appear
that the Party had been guilty of any delay he
was entitled to be discharged,- and therefore the
Rule for dischaling him should' be iliacie absolute.
The Court thought at first, that it' should be with- ,
out costs ; but, upon \further' consideration,' his
Lordship' said the protedion the Court wished to
afford to Witt esses in their attendance, would not
be effedual" unless this Rule was made absolute
with costs.—Rule absolute with costs.