The Sun.
London, England, 1818-03-16 00:00:00

ea proMty, and n Oar-tail/ 'of attorney to confess
judgment by' a certain day—which day 'Would not
occur until the month Of August 1816. Upon
receiving the latter securities, they had agreed to
delivertp the promissory note, but failed to per--
form their promise. Not Withstanding this treble.
security for the same debt, the defendants, in
the month of March, 1816, issued an extent in
aid -upon the promissory noti, which they had
-agreed to give up; founded on the usual affidavit,
that the plaintiff %vas in insolvent • circumstances,

•and that the defendants would be unable to pay
the debt of the Crown, unless they !lad the assist-
ance of the prerogative prrict-,,. ACCbrdingly,
under the extent, all the plaintifra'property was
seized ; but, however, the case being tried in the
Court of Exchequer, the Jury found a verdict
against the defendants, thereby declaring that
there was no debt due to them from the plaintiff

to support the extent. In the mean time, how-
ever, the Sheriff's Officer remained in possession of
the plaintiff's prortty until the following term,
when- the event was withdrawn'; but the very
satne day the defendants entered up judgmtnt on
-their•warrant of attorney, in pursuance of which
the plaintiff and his children were turned into the.
street, and his property sold, thereby effecting
his ruin ; itl coast (pence of which the present
action was brought, it being proved that the
plaintiff, at the time of issuing the extent, had
abundance of property to pay all his debts, and
still worth some hundreds of pounds. The de-

fendants being aware of the nlaCntitf's solvent cir-
cumstances, it was contended that they had issued
the extent in aid maliciously, and without any
reasonable or probable cause.
On the putt of the defendants,
Several witnesses were Called, the principal ob-
ject of whose testimony was to shew, that the

plaintiff was in tLe most distressed and insolvent
circumstances at the tune the extent was issued ;
but the evidence fell considerably short of the case
opened for the defendants.

Mr. Baron Woon summed up the case tvith
great perspicuity, charging them in point of law,
that the promisNory note, Upon which the extent
was founded, merged in the higher security of the
Mortgage and warrant of attorney. But it was.
for the Jury to determine whether the defendants
had acted maliciously, and without any reasona-
ble or probable cause.. The evidence in the ,iatse
certainly ;:roved that at the time they made their
affidavit the plaintiff was not in insolvent circum-
stances, and nothing was shewn to justify•their
deposition that the plaintiff was unable to pay
their debt. It also appeared that they had agreed

to give up the promissory no►e, upon receiving
the other securities. If. however, there was no
malice, or if there was a probable cause for the
proceeding, the defendants would be entitled to a
verdict.

The Jury found a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, Twelve Hundred Pounds. •
The verdict was received with acclamation by

the audience.
The rest Of the causes: were made remnants,
and both the Judges, together with Mr. Gurney
and the Common Serjea frt. Ivied prisoners to finish
the Calendar. None of their cases were woith
repotting, and she Assizes concluded.