The Sun.
London, England, 1804-01-31 00:00:00

LAW REPORT.

RT OF KING's BENCH, JAN. 28.

RAIN V. WAINWRIGHT.

,vas Rule to shew 'Cause why a sum of.
7.7 posited in the hands of a Sheriff's Officer
urpose ef procuring the liberation of a per-
son v,,;1-, ~•as arrested, and who could not, on the
instant, rocure bail, should not be paid by that
Sheriff's Officer into Court for the purpose of being
dealt with dec
7,1) 43in7 to law, that is, paid to the per-
s. who had made the depoiit.
The Affidavit of the Defendant who had deposited
the money, stated, that this money was put into
the hands of the Sheriff's Officer as a deposit, under
the authority of the late At of Parliament for the
purpose of procuring his liberation, instead of put-
ting- in :—that he was arrested by this Officer
at the suit of another person, for the sum of sof.
and upward,, and taken to the Lock-up-house ; sent
for his Attorney to advise with him about the mat-
ter, and, in pursuance of that advice, he caused the
Sheriff's Office to be searched to see if any other
Wrir was lodged against him, and it was found there
was none ; he then deposited with this Sheriff's Of.
fi:,:er the sum of 601. that is, sol. to answer for the
debt swnro to by the Plaintiff in the action, and
rel. to cover the costs, pursuant to the directions
of the Ad of Parliament, upon which he was libe-
rated. On the Friday following, this Defendant
was arrested again for another debt, upon which,
by the advice of his Attorney, he proposed to put
in bail to both the actions, and then expected to
have his deposit money given him back again, but
he was then told by the Sheriff's Officer, that the
money he had deposited, had been given ,to the
Plaintiff for his debt, and that a sum had also gone
for the costs ; arid then the Officer added, there is
some change coming to you, upon which he gave
him 61. 95. 6d. out of his 601. saying, that .the
debt and costs were $3l. los. 63.—Upon this the
Defendant sent to his Attorney to put in bail, and
said that the whole should be returned to him—up.
on which the Officer said, the-money for the debt
had been paid over to the Plaintiff. The Defendant
then put in bail in both suits, and insisted upon the
money deposited being returned.
The Affidavit of the Defendant's Attorney con.
firmed this statement.
The Court here asked, if the Plaintiff, in the
first action, was made a party to the Rule ?—it be-
ing answered in the negative, the Court said there
was no use in going on, for that he was eventually
interested, and moat claim to retain the debt, and
therefore until he became a party, nothing final
could be done : upon which
Mr. ERSKINE consented to shew cause for. the
:is well as the Sheriff's Officer, vgainst the
Rule ; and proceeded accordingly to observe, that
all the fads were corredly stated in the Defendant's
Affidavit, except that the money delivered to the
Sheriff's Officer was understood, at the time, by all
the parties, to be, not a deposit to procure the libe-
ration of the Defendant, but as payment of the debt,
to put an end to the action, and to avoid the chance
of another Detainer being lodged against him.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, if that was so, of
courae the Officer had given to the Defendant some.
thing to shew that he was discharged from the ac-
tion—that was so natural if he had paid debt and
costs, that it was next to impossible it should be
otherwise. There was no such document given.
Mr. EtrsxlNE said, the Sheriff's Officers con-
cerned, all swore there was no mention as to a de-
posit, when the money was paid by the Defendant,
and there was nothing said upon that by the De-
fenklatit.

The CHIEF JuiTtc P. said, the sum itself said it;
the sum was exatily what the Aft of Parliament re.
quired in order to entitle the Defendant to his libe-
ration, natnely, the debt sworn to, and tol. deposit
for the costs. If it had been given as a payment of
the debt, the Defend.lnt must have had some dis-
charge from the aaion in writing ; there was no
such discharge, and therefore the obvious conclusion
was, that the money was delivered by way of de-
posit ; and now. the Defendant had put in hail, and
thereforewas entitled to the money hack again, so that
this Rule must he made absolute. His Lordship added,
it would-Ale well if some further provision were made
to prevent, in all these cases, an Aft of Parlia_
ment intended for the Relief of the Subject in
the hour of Distress, from becoming an engine of
Oppression. This Aaol Parliament had been call-
ed his MI; it certainly did not originate with him,
nor was it introduced into Parliament by. bins. One
of the clauses he had been the means of modifying,
and by which he believed it was rendered less in.
jurious than it would have been if past in its origi..
nal f )trri ; but he had some doubts whether, at pre.
sent, unless care taken to watch over its execu-
tion, it would not do more mist-hid' than good.
Mr. Ejt.pct E said, that the Defendant in his Af-
fidavli-14:ftbt sworn to any merits in the ktion.

Mr. justice Lai.v a ENCE said, that merits or no
merits, tlie.Shetiff's Officer had no right to convert
a deposit into payment.

Rule absolute.

FOXITALL ,V. LORD ARUNDFL.

Mr, _BURROUGHS said, he had a Motion, which
must be made to-day. It was for a Rule to enlarge
a Rule, calling on the Sheriff to :return the Writ
Fi. Fa. in this cause. This was a. Writ of Exe-
cution issued.against gOods of Lord Arundel, in
.Wardour Castle. These goods were claiimed as the
.goods oi,Lady Arundel, and her- property exclusive
of her hu,diand, of which notice was given to the
Sheriff; the same subject was now depending in this
Court _under a Rule fur. a new Trial. My Lady
Arundel had filed a Bill in Chancery upon this sub.
jea, and obtained an Ilijutaion against the Sheriff
and the Plairtiff in this cause, and other parties, un.
til Answer and l'urther Order of the CHANCELLOR ;
it was therefore impouible for the Sheriff to return
this Writ at present, for he could not execute it
without incurring the penalties of a Contempt of
the Court of Chancery. _ _ _