The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-17 00:00:00

TIONs.

The insolvent, a young man who had resided in Portland-
place, and who bad been connected with " bill transactions,"
applied to be discharged on his interim order of protection
until the hearing.
Mr. M‘liale, one of the detaining creditors, attended with
his solicitor, and objected to the discharge, on the ground
that the insolvent would abscond if he g it 4,ut of pt icon.
There had been :merit difficulty in arresting him, but there
would be no objection to bis being discharged if bail was
given.

Mr. Commissioner Phillips said there could be no bail in
a Protection Act. The Legislature had altetel the law and
he could not help it. There was nothing iu the act against
the present application.
The attorney for Mr. M'Hale remarked that the debts
were £6,000.
Mr. C. V. Lewis, the insslvent's attorney, objec!ed to the
solicitor appearing in the casa.
The learned Commissioner sustained the objection, as it
was contrary to the practice of the Court to allow a solicitor
,to oppose.
Mr. Lewis assured the Court that the insolvent woul.l
appear on the hearing. There were, he admitted, detainers
against him.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips discussed the question of the
discharge, and said, as he saw nothiniz. in the act against
he was bound to order the discharge till the day of hearing.
Granted accordingly.
IN RE LINGARD.

Mr. Denney applied for the discharge of this insolvent.
He had been discharged by the Chief Commissioner, and
was now in prison for the costs in the action on which
he was discharged.

The Coromilsioner refused to interfere, leaving the matter
in the hands of the other commissioner.

ASSIZE INTELLIGEIVCE.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—BRISTOL, AUG. 14 AND 16.
(Before Mr. Baron Chaunell.)
PUTCHER T. HINDER.
Mr. Stale and Mr. Prideaux were counsel fur the plaintiff,
and Mr. M. Smith and Mr. H. T. Cole for the defendant,
This was an action for an arrest and false imprisonment.
The defendant pleaded " Not Guilty," and a justification
Oat he took the plaintiff under the authoril of a writ of
ca. sa. The plaintiff replied to this that notice of the with-
drawal of the writ had been given to the sheriff.
The plaintiff was a farmer at Fovant, in Wiltshire. The
defendant was a sheriff's officer at Salisbury. The action
was brought to recover damages for an arrest and false im-
prisonment, under the following circumstances :—ln 1856
the plaintiff was in difficulties, and endeavoured to make a
compromise with his creditors; two of those credirers, how-
ever' refused to agree to the composition, and one of them
adopted proceedings' sad obtained a judgment. A warrant
was issaed and placed in the hands of the defendant, but, as
the creditor afterwards came into the arrangement, and a
notice having previously been given to the defendant to
suspend the execution of the warrant for 14 days, a notice
was put into the post-office, stating that the matter had
been settled and that the warrant was withdrawn. The
plaintiff then, on the 2d of May, returned to bis house at
Fovant. He saw the defendant on different occasions and
spoke to him, but nothing occurred until Saturday, the
14th of November, when the defendant met the plaintiff
and arrested him upon the warrant. The plaintiff said the
matter was settled ; the defendant said it was not
settled. The plaintiff said he could show him the receipts
if he would go to his house. The defendant said he
would not look at any receipts. The plaintiff then
said he would pay him the money. The defendant
said he had no orders to receive money, and he must go to
gaol at Salisbury, and the defendant accordingly took him to
Salisbury gaol on the Saturday evening. He sent fir a
solicitsr at Salisbury, but did sot obtain his discharge until
the following Wednesday night at half-pas. 11. Mr. Lee's
charges were £9 15s.
The plaintiffproved the arrest.
Mr. Cox, solicitor, of Size-lane, stated that he had been
in negotiation with a Mr. Genge, managing clerk to a soli-
citor, in consequence of which be had written, on the 20th
of April, to the defendant,ordering the execution of the writ
to be suspended for 14 days. After that an arrangement
was come to for the settlement of the action-10s. in the
pound down, a promissory-note for 55., and the costs. He
wrote to Genge, enclosing withdrawal of the ca. .ea. He
also wrote to the defendant,on the 24 of May, with a similar
withdrawal.
Mr. Cox's clerk was called to prove putting the letter into
the post-office ; but it turned out to be a " pressed" letter,
and he could not say by whom, or to whom, the envelope
was addressed, or whether it was addressed at all. He be-
lieved it to have been addressed "Sarni. Hinder, Esq.,
Sheriff's officer, Salisbury." All the letters be posted to
him he believed to have been directed in that way. •
Mr. Slade produced the copy of the letter, as the defend-
ant did not produce the original.
The Judge said he would receive the copy, giving the de-
fendant leave to move. It appeared to him that it was rea-
sonable to suppose that the envelope was directed according
to the address contained in the letter.
Mr. Cox, cross-examined—Did not communicate with the
under-sheriff.
Mr. Smith said be could provide a complete direction by
the sheriff.
The Judge said if so there might be a doubt whether the
plaintiff could recover.
The case was adjourned on Saturday night to this morn-
ing.

The trial was resumed this (Monday) morning.
Thomas Todd Walton, thepoatmaster of Bristol, said that
if a letter, of which this was a copy, was sent to Mr. Hin-
der, Salisbury, it would be returned to the Post-office in
Loudon if Hinder could not be found at Salisbury, and
then it would be returned to the writer; but should the ad-
dress be inserted in the body of the letter it would be sent
to the proper address first.
This evidence was objected to by the defendant's counsel,
but was received subject to a motion.
It was shown that the defendant bad received a fee of £1
Ils. Gd. in May.
George Genge—l am clerk to Mr. Swyre, a solicitor at
Salisbury, and was employed to settle the actions of
" Beck v. Futcber" and " Burleie h v. Futcher." On the
23d of April I sent a letter to the defendant, stating that the
matter was in course of arrangement, desiring him to sus-
pend the execution of the warrants, and requesting him to
know his charges. I heard from him, stating the charge
would be £2 2s. I wrote to him offering him lls. Gd.,
which he agreed to take, and I sent him a cheque for the
amount, and received a notice of the withdrawal of the war-
rant in Burleigb's case from Messrs. Cox and Sons, his
solicitors. What I did with it I don't know, bet I can't
find it in the office.
Ewer, a corn dealer, andimember of the town council
of Salisbury, knew of the arrangement of the two actions in
which Futcher was defendant. Knew of a warrant being
in the hands of Hinder. Subsequently, frequently saw I
Futcher at Salisbury. Had a communicati-n with Hinder
in May or June. Asked him if he wanted Fetcher, as he
was in Salisbury. Hinder said no, he did not want him.
William Futcher, brother of the plaintiff, was at S.rlis-
bury with him in july at the agricultural meeting. Saw
Hinder there, but did not know whether Hinder saw them.
Saw Hinder pass through the village of Fovant in August.
Mr. Smith contended that there was no notice to the
sheriff:
The Judge said there was no notice unless notice to the
defendant was notice to the sheriff; but he would give the
defendant leave to move.
Mr. Smith then addressed the jury for the defendant.
The arrest was not wanton. The plaintiff had been largely
indeb:ed to several persons. An arrangement had been
made with several creditors, but two proceeded against him
ail obtained judgment. The warrants were sent to the
defendant to be executed. The writs were in the county of
Wilts. They were suspended for a time. The defendant
had notice they were suspended. He took no steps until
di, ected by the sheriff.
Mr. Slade said that was not assigned.
The Judge thought it ought to have been assigned.
Mr. Smith said, he should ask to amend in such a hard
case.

Mr. Slade—A bard case, keeping a man in gaol four days.
The Judge thought he could net amend.
Mr. Smith said, there was no notice from the plaintiff
himself. He would go to the merits. The writs were in
the defendant's hands. He had an order to suspend the exe-
cution. The solicitors did not communicate with the Under-
Sheriff as they ought to have done. It was now said that a
e t
Messes. Cox and Sons to the defendant
Hnedre
r was. sby
that evidence satisfaCtory as it stood ? Ti err
I
was so much uncertainty about the sending that lett e thee
the jury could not rely upon it. He should crll ti e
defendant, who would say he never received the/
letter, and the Under-Sheriff would tell them that
he never heard of any arrangement, and that he
directed the defendant to execute the writ. The defendant
held his bands because he knew there was an arrangement
proceeding, and he remained qu!et until the Under Sheriff
told him to execute the writ. It would be a fact in the case
that about the period alluded to a clerk in the Salisbury
pv
ioestte-do.ffi coe hidn th
the
t 07ltehn
oaf nNuomy let emr
boefrl,e
Nit t err. sx andw; dt
hbee eunncdorert:
Sheriff; wrote to the defendant, directing hint to execute this
warrant. The defendant having' received this letter pro-
cPedot to errest the plaintiff. The defendant bad not any
motive but to do his duty. It was not true that the plaintiff
had offered the defendant the money. -After proving this
ca=e he should with confidet.ce ask them for a verdict.
Samuel Hinder—l am a sheriff's officer, and the defen-
dant in this action. In February, 1857, I received warrcets
in the cases of " Burleigh v. Further" and " Beck v.
Fur cher." I afterwards received a letter frnrti Messrs. Cox
and Sons, suspending their execution for 14 days. I there-
ere delayed err wing the plaintiff: Ott the '260 of April
tt hoe
fUn
Octobere- Sli eI rirffe,eeiorderingv
received
a f
I received a letter from Mr. Genge, which I sent to Mr.
directing me to execute the warranlaett
't
ti
3r 71
s'fnerr,otsinuFsietsi ;ern,
;s:Aro
.nw.d
On
further suspension. On
the 31st of October I received a lett letter
the 9th November I received a letter frorr'Me A
stating
that a su-pension had been ordered in " Beck.v.;l:l9l
ordering me to execute the one in " Burlei I v. lzut et but
6 ler."
I, in consequence, arrested the plaintiffet
afternoon of Saturday. I had been •• ' past on the
Nl•wring to take him as
he came from market. Ilse said if it was not settled
might to have been. I told him it could notice settled it
had heard nothing of it. I wished him to send fur ;rise
cousin, as we could reason the case over, nett I might pos-
sibly take his undertaking. Be said he wt u'd not trolub'e
any of his fi it rids. I wished him to call on Ewer, but
he would not. The plaintiff made no offer to pay we
the money. I should have been glad enough to get it.
I then took him to Salisbury gaol. I never received the
letter from Messrs. Cox and Sons in May, nor any let t..r to
that effect. I have had no er,mmunication •
orming sue of
the withdrawal of that ea. sa.
Cross-examined.-1 did not tell Mr. Wilsen, plaintiff's
attorney, that he had caught me twice. I said 14mM put
my trust in Providence. I had to refund sotee of my charges
in two cases ; one was for giving a man time. I had the I
netiee of suspension for 14 days. I did not feel it my duty
to take biro aftkr the 14 days wi.hout further orders. I eoul,l
not see myself clear in doing it. If he heel paid me the money
I should have lodged him in my houge. Ile did nut offer to
show me o.le receipts. I say that what the plaintiff said about
the offer of money and the receipts was an invention. I had
no legal claim for the £1 lie. 6d. I received from Mr. Genge,
but if a gentleman offers me money I take it. The fee on a
guinea, and we get an allowance for an assistant,
captain is a .
and
we take anything we can
,f we can get 1•, . . •
is solicitor in the matter and defends
The under-sheriff
fees atßeck's case.
I had no
at my expense.
Re-examined—l was £4 out ef pocket.
tbe I look to the
ve a bond to
sheriff (Jr my Instructions. Igi

we3t Awdry—l am'under-sberiff for the coanty of Wilts,
and have been so for several years. I have tbelwrit of ca. so.
in-the action of " Fatcher;" I isanede-warrant
and sent it to Hinder. It is usual for solicitors to comm.
racate with the urder-shei iff in cale of a settlement. I had
no communication from the solicitor in Burkigh's case until
after the arrest.

Cross-examined—Mr. Lee spoke to me upon the subject
of this arrest on behalf of Futcher. I have no doubt I in-
formed Mr. Lee that I had instructed Hinder. I had not
received any direction from Cox and Sons to proceed upon
this warrant.

Mr. Smith summed up his evidence. The mistake was
not with the defendant er the sheriff, but from the .solicitor
of Mr. Burleigh or Mr. Futcher not having done his duty.
Mr. Slade replied for :the plaintiff upon the whole case.
He hoped this would not be au instance of a great wrong
being suffered without a remedy. They were now twitted
by the standing counsel for the under-sheriff that they had
gone against the bailiff instead of against the under-sheriff.
But whom were they to sue? They believed the wrong to
be in the bailiff, and therefore, out of kindness to Mr. Awdry,
they did not attack him. Which, then, did they believe—
that fine specimen of a Wilisbire farmer, Mr. Fa:cher, or
the hound bailiff of the sheriff. He submitted they would
believe the former. Had they any doubt that that letter had
cone out of Messrs. Cox's office ?That letter had never been
returned. If it had not reached its destination, would it not
have been returned? Or we►o they to suppose that that
little thief had purloined the letter. If they were of opinion
that the defendant had received that notice of withdrawal.
they must find a verdict for the plaintiff.
Mr. Boron Channell then summed up.
Toe jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages,
£5O. Points of law were reserved.