The Sun.
London, England, 1803-02-23 00:00:00

MEUX AND OTHERS 'V. HOWELL AND OTHERS.

'This was an atlion.upon the statute of > the 13th
Of Elizabeth,
,and upon a part of it, which has net
been brought into force- in the time of my Lord
ELLSNBOROVGH, and Mr. FltoatNP. said, he knew
of only one instance of it in the time.Of Illy-1,0111
MANSFIELD, and that was against, Mr. ,Crossley,
who was once a celebrated charaeter in Westminster
Hall, but who had gone on his travels to the
Southern Hemisphere: upon that anion the Court
did him the favour to call upon him for the penalty
of this MI of Parliament. It was a statute which
was often put in force, as it related to one Creditor
getting a fraudulent preference to another, by means
of a Bill of Sale or otherwise, and for setting such
artifices aside, but very rarely it, the penal part of
it, which enaeted, that a certain penalty should at.
tach on the party who should fraudulently defeat
any Creditor in pursuit of his demand against ,his
Debtor. The case was shortly this—Messrs.
IVleux, the Brewers, had a demand on a person of
the name of Norton, who rented a house of them,
the Roebuck, in Holborn; and also for bier, with
Which they had supplied him ; the rent was 921.
the debt for beer, 1401. They distrained for the
rent, and Norton being embarrassed greatly, they
kindly gave him time to see if he could turn himself
round; but after consulting upon his affairs,-and
finding that he could not go on to advantage, he
consented that the house, stock, and fixtures, should
be transferred to 'a person of the name of Wilkinson,
who agreed to give foi the Whole, 2361. and- gave
*him rot, by way of deposit upon which Norton
signed an authority for Wilkinson to pay Messrs.
Tvleux the whole of their demand, and the surplus
to be for himself, the' Distress for the Rent re.
maining in the house until the whole of the debt to
Messrs. Meux was paid. In this situation Messrs. r
Howell and Attley, distillers, having -11 demand on
Norton for.liquoi., to the amount of about 431. Mr.
Attley came to Norton, who was then in custody
for debt, 'and detained, among others, by them ;'
and told him it was not right that the Sharks,
Messrs. Meux, should run away with, the whole
of the property—it was right it should be equally.
distributed .between all the Creditors, and proposed
to Norton to execute an instrument for that pur.
pose : upon which Norton agreed to it. The At.
torney of Messrs. Howell and Attley came to Nor.
ton for this purpose, on which he executed a writ.
ing, which, he said, he thOught was only for the
purpose of distributing his effects equally among his
Creditors ; but which afterwarda turned out to be
n Warrant of Attorney, to' confess Judgment f 4
Soo). to Messrs. Howell and Attley, with an
dorsement, that it was for the 'payMent of the debts.
of Norton, to be equally distributed" among theM,
upon which the person who remained 'in possession;

under the Distress, put in by Messrs. Mena, was
turned out by the Officer of tliaSileriff, whO came
into possession bY virtue of an Execution issued out
on th'. Judgment entered up by virtue of the
Warrant of Attorney, thus taken by the Attorney
of Messrs. Howell and Attley ; Wilkinson not
chusing to take to the goods under these circum.
stances, he not wishing, as he expressed it, to .fish
in troubled waters. , Thegoods were then sold un.
der this Execution, issued by Messr: Howell Old
Attley, and produced about Sol. They .continued
to proceed against Norton in their anion, although
they protnised to liberate hiM.upon his executing
this power to distribute the .property among all the
Creditors. The Attorney for Messrs.. Howell and'
Attley swore, that'his Instrunions from them was
only to take such steps as would be the means of
distributing the:property of Norton equally between
his
:Creditors, but that they knew nothing of the
i means' by which t was done:. that he, the
.Attor-,
ney, took this Warrant as the only means he knew
of to answer the purpose ; and therefore, he took
this Warrant of him, the purport of which Norttin
knew as well as himself; but of which Messrs.
HOwell and Attley knew nothing ; they having
only" instructed him to pursue the means necessary
for the purpose. s
Lord ELLENBOROUGH lamented that the penal
p.irt of this statute was not more familiar to the
Court than it was, and that the words of that part
were nor more clear;, however, as at present ad-
vised, he was of opinion, that if the Plaintiffs were
entitled to 'recOvet in this case at all, it must be on
the first Count in the Declaration, and for one
Penalty only, which was for the-sum for which the
Warrant of Attorney was taken, being, 8001. and
the costs. But his Lordship thought the fair,con_
struCtion upon the rnal part of the aa, :was, that
the Defendants should nor only have conceived this
plan of defeating the Distress
.levied by Messrs.,
Meux and Co.' which was a regular Distress, but
also that they must have beeri privy to the means
'by which the plan was to be carried into' execution.
Now, the Defendants' Attorney swore positively,
that his Clients only direacd the end, but knew no.
thing about the means; and if they believed such At-
torney, they would find a verdin for the Defendants.
It' they did not believe the Defendants' Attorney,
they would find a verdin for the Plaintiffs in one
penalty, which, in this case, his Lordship thought,
applicable to the first count in the Declaration,
which was for the Boot. and costs, for which the
Warrant of Attorney was taken.
Verdict for the Plaintiffs, . Damages 8)31.,35. on,
first count, and upon the rest of the record for
;Ise Defendants.

Messrs. Meux and Co. MI. ERSKINE said, cared
nothing for this penalty; their sole objett.wai, to
have a legal coustruOion ui,on the statute, and to
have that promulgated.

QLJ) BAILEY.