The Sun.
London, England, 1802-12-13 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING's BENCH, Dtc.

TT:NGS LEVORE LORD ELLENBOROUGII IN O.UII7DIIALL,

LONDON.

KNOWLF.S .V. HOUBLON.

,Txts was an Adion against the Shetiffof Essex,
for not having arrested a man of the name of Hay-
lock, to arrest whom the Sheriff,had issued a War-
-I.itut to bne of his. Officers, for that purpose ; and it
Was sta7t*lo that Haylock was at home, and might,
NOte 'beenirres.ted, but that he was ill, and :the
Sheriff's... Officer did not chose to arrest him, .but
afte.rwards served him with a Notice of Declaration,
which was good for nothing, .because the Defendant
in that Adion, not being served with Process,. was
not bound to plead to that Declaration. Soon after_
:wards this. man died, so that the Plaintiff lost the
advantage he would have gained by the Arrest of
'that persons and he now called on the Sheriff to
make good that loss. The Sheriff was, indeed,
nominally the Defendant, the real one was the
Sheriff's Officer, for he indemnified the Sheriff.
It was 'understood, the Plaintiff's Counsel said,
that something was to be said about the man being
in a state that was not fit for him to be arres.ted in ;
that was no excuse, it was the duty of the Sheriff's
Officer to have made the caption. How far it
might have been 'consistent with the rules .of
Humanity to remove the man, was another ques-
tion„alad might have been judged of after the cap-
. ti4o: WaP ;
,but the caption ought to have
tbeeminadcat 411 events, and,-,if it could be shewn,
that the Sheriff's Officer had the Warrant, and was
Awber4 the Defendant was, and he did not, try
/tq,prost him, the. Sheriff was answerable for it to

-t.hcp appeared, -that the Sheriff had signed
this Warrant, and that the man was at home and.
:night have .been arrested, and that the Sheriff
had returned-the Writ stating, " that the man was
not to be found in his ,Bailiwick," &c. but, as the •
Warrant was not produced, the Plaintiff was non_
suited.

WILLIAMS KJ. JACOBS•

TIE Plaintiff had been Serjeant at Arms, and is
nolv Gunner on board one of His Majesty's ships.
-The Defendant, :Mr. Judah Jacobs, a person of the
jewisb persuasion'.at Portsmouth, and a Slopseller.
:The Aftion was for 2401. prize-money, received by
the Defendant by Virtue of Power of Attorney.
The 13,..fence was, not that the money was not
received,' for that was Clear ; but that the Pe-
fendant had advanced to the Plaintiff upwards, of
5001. of which the following were the particulars
-
1798.-
Ott. 20. To Cash advanced to the

Plaintiff
Cash paid to Mr. Cane on ac-
, count of the.PlaintifF
To commission
Dec. 27. Cash advanced

f. 250 o o

3 800.

- 70 9 6
14. 2 O

204. 0 0

In all - f. 538 i z 6

To support this particular, a Witness of the
name of David Lazarus, a Watchmaker and Silver_
smith at Portsmouth, appeared, and he swore, that he
went to Woolwich, and went on board a ship where
the Plaintiff'was and shewed him two receipts of his,
one for the ruin of 761. Is. and the other for 2041.
entered into a conversation with him, on the subjctt
of the dispute between him and`Mr. Jacobs, when
the Plaintiff acknowledged them both to be his, and
said that he would not have gone to hiw with Mr.
lacobs if he had not been persuaded. • The Receipt
for the 2041. was in these words.:—“ Woolwich
27, Dec. i 800, received of Mr. Jacobs 2041. being
the Balance of Prize_money due to me from His
Majesty's Ship Eurus, and in full of all. demands,
by me P. Williams, Gunner."
Upon this it was observable, that at this time,
iftoth these sums of money were really advanced,
this Receipt could not have been for the balance of
Prize-money due to the Plaintiff; for the balance
must hiVe been in favour of the Defendant, and
Lord ELLENBOROUGH observed upon the whole.
Case, that it was an extremely important question,
that the Jury ought to weigh it well, especially as
these Receipts were swore to, and indeed admitted
to be of the hand-writing of the 'Plaintiff.—
The question was, Whether, all th; money was
really advanced upon them, or whether the Plain-
tiff had been imposed upon ? There was no
proof of any consideration whateKer, except that
of a few, slops, and if this money was really ad-
vanced . by this slop-seller, the: greater part of it
must have been advanced upon pure generosity, far
it was advanced before it could be known whether
the Plaintiff, would be entitled to any Prize_money
at all. The Jury were to consider whether so much
generosity from a. Jew slop-seller to a sailor was
within the ordinary course of events, for the Jury
were not bound: to believe that these sums were
advanced, on the mere proof of the . hand-
writing to the Receipts ; the matter ought to
be explained, somebody ought to h,eve been pre-
sent when so much, money was advanced by this
Defendant to. the Plaintiff. In a 'doubtful case the
Rule for the Jury to follow was, if they found one
side of the Case consistent, to believe it, unless it
was answered. And.if they found one part of a
Case false, to carry on their suspicion throughout
the Case until it was cleared up, especially when
the main part appeared to be improbable) which
was the case here on the part of the Defendant—
for it was clear that the sum charged to be paid Mr.
Cane was not brotight to the Plaintiff's account at all.
His Lordship then went minutely, over the whole
of the case, as it appeared in evidence, and left the
wly)le..triatter to the Jury ,to decide as to them
should appear to be, right.
The' jury retired, and having remained. out of
Court for some time, returned a verdia for the
Plaintiff—Damages 401.