The Sun.
London, England, 1832-11-03 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

BAILEY V. SIIERWOOD•

This was the petition of the plaintiff, Mr. Bai'ey, a
gentlemen resident in the county, praying that eight
bills of costs of the defendant, who is an attorney,
'night be referred to the master of taxation, though they
had been paid, on the ground of their containing improp,r
charges. It appeared that the defendant had been
the legal adviser of the plaintiff from the year
1822 to 1830, and in that character had delivered
-he bills in question for his professional assistance.
Five of the bills had been paid by moneys which the
defendant had received on account of the plaintiff, and
•he other three had been paid by the plaintiff himself,
while in prison, at the suggestion of the defendant, and
t a period when the connection of solicitor and client
had terminated.

Mr. BEcKEttsrETH, for the defendant, contended that
,he Court could not interfere, inasmuch as the first
five bills had been acceded to and not found fault with till
long after the connection of solicitor and client had ceased,
tnd the last three had been paid while the plaintiff had the
Ad verse assistance of another solicitor.

The MASTER of the ROLLS thought that the single cir-
cumstance of the bill containing improper charges, apart
from everything else, would authorise the Court to inter-
fere, and ordered the bill to be referred to the Master for
taxation.

KING'S BENCII.-(THIS DAY.)

TWEED V. MANSFIELD.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved to reduce the da-
inages in this case from 1,5001. to 5391. The plaintiff
was a lessee of certain property in Essex, on which was a
bridge. From the want of repairs the bridge fell in, and
the action was brought against the defendant for not keep-
ing it in proper repair. The ground of the present appli-
cation was that Lord Tenterden, in his address to the
Jury, recommended to them to give too large a sum for
the repairs and loss of use while the bridge was delapi-
dated.—Rule Nisi granted.
IMPORTANT TO SHERIFFS' OFFICERS-SIMPSON V. RENTON.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover a
penalty of 50/. from the defendant, for a violation of the
Act 32d Geo. 11. c. 28. That Act related to the
conduct of Sheriffs' officers and others in making caption',
and it stated that a Sheriffs' officer on arresting a debtor,
shall not take him to a goal within 24 hours of the caption,
but to such safe and convenient house as the debtor might
nominate within three miles of the place of arrest ; and in
case of the officer refusing, and conveying him to a gaol,
he was liable to a penalty of 501. The Jury found a ver •
diet for the plaintiff.
Mr. POLLOCK moved to day to enter a verdict for de-
fendant. The question, he said, was of very great im-
portance ; and if the Act of Parliament were to be con-
'trued, in all cases of arrest, as it had been in this case,
Sheriff,' officers would be liable to penalties on almost
every occasion on which they arrested persons. It ap-
peared in evidence that the defendant, who was under-
gaoler of Knaresborough Castle, had a writ against the
plaintiff, who lived at Harrowgate. He proceeded there
to arrest him, but the plaintiff and his wife made consi-
derable resistance. However, the plaintiff was got into a
post-chaise and taken to the defendant's house, which com-
municated by a yard behind with the castle or yard
where debtors were confined. That night be slept in
the gaol, and he was seen at the grating of the gaol
on the following morning, which was certainly within
24 hours of arrest. Those were the fac's of the case
upon which the Jury had convicted the defendant, and
there were now two questions for consideration by the
Court :—First, whether that house in which the gaoler
lived was to be deemed a gaol or prison-house within the
meaning of the Act ; and secondly, whether a party with-
out remonstrating or nominating some safe and convenient
house whither he should be carried, could charge the offi-
i-er with a violation of the Act of Parliament. Now it was
clear that the gaoler's house could not be taken to be a part
of the castle, and it was proved that he slept there at his
own desire.

➢lr. Justice J. PARKE—Yes, but it appeared that the
gaoler provided no bed for him, and as he knew a prisoner
in the gaol he asked permission to sleep with him. -
Mr. POLLOCK said, at all events, he went into the gaol
at his own request—no matter for what object. It would
operate as a great hardship upon officers, who, when, they
take persons into custody for debt are obliged to go to any
house the prisoners may choose for 24 hours, sitting up all
night watching them. Was an officer obliged to say to
his prisoner, " Sir, there is an Act of Parliament which
allows you to go to any house you may name for 24 boors,
and I must accompany you." That would be a very great
hardship in the country, where there are not those houses,
known in London as " sponging-houses." In this case the
plaintiff was taken to the gaoler's house, and there he
might have remained until the twenty-four hours expired,
but for his own wish that he might go into the gaol. Mr.
Pollock therefore submitted that the Act, being a penal
on", should not be construed too strictly, and that a ver-
dict should be entered for the defendant.
Mr. Justice J. PARKS said, the Court considered the
gaoler's house to be virtually a part of the gaol, and that
the plaintiff was placed there by the act of the defendant.
Upon that point, therefore, the Court refused the motion ;

but upon the other point, as to whether the plaintiff ought
to have nominated some safe and convenient place him-
self to the plaintiff; the Court granted a rale to show
e iuse.