The Sun.
London, England, 1842-11-10 00:00:00

lIOULDSDITCH V. COLLINS.

In this cause, which came before the Court upon
plea, the plaintiffs were James and John Houlditch ;
the defendants, Christopher Gerard Rigbye Csllins,
William Bird Brodie,• George Barker, and William
Webster.

In July, 1841, the plaintiffs were holders for valu-
able consideration, of five bills of exchange for several
sums, amounting altogether to 4,850/., and which were
respectively drawn by henry Gompertz, and duly
accepted by Mr. Collins, one of the defendants. The
bills, which were drMvn for three months,
were not.-Honoured, and the plaintiffs commenced
an action in May, 1841, in the Court of Exchequer,
against the defendants, which the latter defended.
The plaintiff obtained a final judgment on that occa-
sion for 4,9311. 14s. 10d., total amount of principal
and interest of the bills of exchange, costs of the ac-
tion, &c. The bill prayed that it might be declared
that the plaintiffs were entitled under, and by virtue
of the above-mentioned judgment, to be considered in
this Court as mortgagees of the lands, tenements, he-
reditaments, and leasehold estates of the defendant
Collins. To this bill the defendants Barker and Web-
ster put in a plea that the defendant Collins was resi-
dent in the island of Jersey, and that the plaintiffs had
caused a writ called an ordre provisoire to be issued
by the Bailiff in that Island against the defendant for
the amount of the hills and the costs of protest.
That writ was to the effect that the plaintiffs
were permitted to have seized, arrested, put in
execution, and sequestered if it was so required,
the apparent property of their debtors in all places
where such might be found, to be applied to the
payment of what might be found truly and justly due
to them as strangers or persons expatriable. By
virtue of that writ Collins was seized and thrown into
prison in St. Heliers. The judgment debtor was
thus, it was alleged, taken in execution, and the de-
fendants, relying on the Ist and 2d Victoria, sec. 16,
cap. 110, applied to the Court to have the obligation
on their part to answer the plaintiff's bill dispensed
with, and that the costs of the application might be
allowed them.
His LORDSHIP, in-giving judgment, said that the
words of the Act of Parliament appeared to him per-
fectly plain, and nothing was more certain than that
he had no authority to extend the operation of the
Act by any construction of his. The plaintiffs in the
cause w ere j udgtnent creditor's of the defendan t,and were
entitled
_to have charge of the whole of his property.
The re was a clause in the Act of Parliament to the
effect, that if in such circumstances the creditors
having a judgment and charge should cause the
persou of the judgment debtor to be taken or charged
In execution upon siich judgment, then that such
judgment creditor should be taken to have relin-
quished his right to the charge. The single question
in the present case then must be, whether
the judg-
ment creditors had caused the person of the judgment
debtor to be so taken or charged in execution upon
the judgment. If he had done so the charge then
was relinquished ; if he had not, the Act of Parlia-
ment could not apply. What had been really done
in this case was to adopt proceedings in the Courts
Of Jersey, for the recovery of the same sum
which had been reversed by judgment (as was plainly
indicated by the documents set forth in the plea) and
not execution upon the judgment, which was a course
that could not he taken in any foreign Court. The
proceeding in the Courts of Jersey was mesne pro-
cess, which did not appear to his Lordship to be a case
within the terms of the Act of Parliament. The
judgment debtor was not taken or charged in execu-
tion upon the judgment, and the plea must there-
fore be disallowed.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Nor. 8°
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
1N RE THE METROPOLITAN WOOD-PAVING COMPANT,

EX PARTS.
Mr. WAKEFIELD applied, on the part of the Metro-
politan Wood Paying Company' for an injunction to
restrain Mr. William Saunders from using certain
blocks of wood constructed upon the
principle of Count
de Lisle's patent, which belonged to the Metropolitan
Company. The Learned Counsel stated thfat Mr.
Saunders had laid down a certain quantity
pavement adjoining the Church of St. MarY- °l wood
e- Strand
composed of blocks of wood identical with those of the