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

IN RE LINGARD.

Mr. Denney applied il,;tiledlZiTarge of this insolvent.
lie had beeu discharged by the Chief Commissioner, and
was now in prison for the costs in the action on which
he was discharged.

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

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—BRISTOL, AUG. 14 AND 16,
(Before Mr. Baron Channel)

FUTCHER T. HINDER.
Mr. Slade and Mr. Prideaux were counsel for 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
tkat he took the plaintiff under the authority 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 sheriffs 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 creditors, how-
ever, refused to agree to the composition, and one of them
adopted proceedings, and obtained a judgment. A warrant
was issued 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been settled and that the warrant was withdrawn.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 his 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 for a
solicitor at Salisbury, but did not obtain his discharge until
the following Wednesday night at half-past 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 aMr. Genge, managing clerk to a soli-
citor, in consequence of which he 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. sa. He
also wrote to the defendant on the 2d 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 " Sarol. 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 he could provide a complete direction by
the sheriff.
The Judge saittif 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, the postmaster of Bristol, said that
a letter, of which this was a copy, was sent to Mr. Hin-
der, Salisbury, it would be returned to the Post-office in
...nom not hp fnund at Sa .lisburk and
then it would be returned to the writer; out snouta tne au-
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 had received a fee of /I
Ils. 6d. in May.
George Genge—l am clerk to Mr. Swyre, a solicitor at
Salisbury, and was employed to settle the actions of
" Beck v. Futcher" and " Burleigh 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 fom him, stating the charge
would he £2 2s. I wrote to him offering him £1 lls. 6d.,
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 Burleigh's case from Messrs. CQ X and Sons, his
solicitors. What I did with it I don't know, but I can't
find it in the office.
Ewer, a corn dealer, andlmember 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
Futcher at Salisbury. Had a cornmunicatien with Hinder
in May or June. Asked him if be wanted Fetcher, as he
was in Sall-bury. Hinder said no, he did not want him.
Futcher, brother of the plaintiff, was at Salis-
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 co 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 bad been largely
indeb:ed to several persons. An arrangement had been
made with several creditors, but two proceeded against him
Anil obtained judgment. The warrants were sent to the
defendant to he 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
directed by the sheriff.
Mr. Slade sail that was not assigned.
The Judge thought it ought to have been assigned.
Mr. Smith said, he .sli?uld ask to amend in such a hard
case.
Mr. Slade—A hard case, keeping a man in gaol four days.
The Judge thought he could net amend.
Mr. Smith said, dare was no notice from the plaintiff
himself. lie 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-
iSe hueerri ffwaass ts he eayty oughtl‘r e
stsor
sh. acv%d oanneti lota
sw so n
IT;w lidp.eidfe tnkdaatn at
Hinder. Was that evidence satisfactory as it stood? 'flare
a ub or uo
nt thite. senldiiengstlicautidletet et
ittitita
twhaes
jsourtyn.neeohuuldncenrettainretyly
defendant, who would say he never received that
letter, and the Under-Sheriff would tell them that
he
h directed
d hineversbands
en
d(I
see
fbae rendeda
aunos
tef
ejaeneky x
ne
execute
uwt
etarrangement,hteLree wwraist .
an
Thea
rdr
ad
net
gfhe
ean
mt d hnn ett
proceeding, and he remained quiet 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
post-office lied stolen a number of letters, and had been con-
victed. On the 7th of November, Mr. Awdry, the Under-
Sheriff, wrote to the defendant, directing him to execute this
warrant. The defendant having received this letter pro-
ceeded to arrest the plaintiff. The defendant bad not any
motive but to do his duty. It was not true that the plaintiff
had effered the defendant the money. After proving this
case he should with confidence ask them for a verdict.
Samuel Hinder-1 am a sheriff's officer, and the defen-
dant in this action. In February, 1857, T received warrants
in the cases of " Butleigh v. Futcher" and " Beck v.
Futcher." I afterwards received a letter from Messrs. Cox
and Sons, suspending their execution for 14 days. I there-
forere delayed
dlvaeyeda arrestinglettftomthemprla. intiif.OntherstehntoftaApirri.l
I e
Awdry, the UnderSberiff,erderin g a fu Genge, which
further suspension. On
the 31st of October I received a letter from Mr. Awdry,
directing me to execute the warrant against Futcher. On
the 9th November I received a letter from Mr. Awdry, stating
that a suspension had been ordered "Beck v. Futchier," but
ordering me to execute the one in "Burleigh v. Futcher."
I, in consequence, arrested the plaintiff at half-past 6on the
afternoon of Saturday. I had been waiting to lake him as
he came from market. Ile said if it was not settled it
ought to have been. I told him it could noilbe settled, as
11 had heard nothing of it. I wished him to send for his
cousin, as we could reason the case over, and I might pos-
sibly take his undertaking. Ile said he would not trouble
any of his friends. I wished him to call on Ewer, but
he would not. The plaintiff made no offer to' pay me
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 letter to ,
that effect. I haee had no communication infernning me of
the withdrawal of that ca. ca.
Cross-examined.--I did not tell Mr. Wilson, plaintiff's
atferitey, that he had caught me twice. I said I stioull put
my trust in Providence. 1 had to refund some of my elm, gts
in two cases; one was for giving a man time. I had the,
11,,tiee of stivensi,m for 14 days. I did net feel it my duty
to take him after the 14 days %%Piqa further orders. I could
not see myself clear in doing it. If he had paid me the money
I should have lodged him in toy
whohuatset.heHpleaidaitdiffneoatidefrerto
show m
about
the eoternio.enceeyiPatsn.dle
the
Itsiayreceipts that
was art invention. I had
offer
no legal claim for 1 11s. 6d. I received from Mr. Genge,
get an allowance for an assistant,
guinea, and wtaei,eint
but if a gentleman offers me money I take it. The fee on a
if we can get it, and wewe can get besides.
captain is a
The under-sheriff is my solicitor anythinglie matter anti defends
t ef ()diet. I look to the
Re-examined—l was ou
at my expense. I h
give ond to the phcriff.
sheriff for niy instruction..
ad no lees at all in Beck' a case.