Star.
London, England, 1804-01-31 00:00:00

LAW INTELLiGE.vGE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JAN. 2C.
Fox init.t. v. Loon •111.1 /4 DBL.
This was a Rule calling upon the Sheriff of wilts,
to make a return to a writ of ficre facial, bred out in
the above aelion.
Mr. Buitoows this day moved that the Rule Mould
be enlarged till the next term. He grounded his
motion, he laid, upon an affidavit, which let forth,
that an application had been made to the Court of
Chancery, praying the Chancellor to iffue an injunc-
tion, reboil)* all perfons from levving ditlrefs or
civil prueels againft the furniture in Wardour Catlle,
hth being the propetty of Lady Arundel, under legal
conveyance, and cot fequently not liable to be taken
in execution for his Lortlfhip's debts. An injunition
so the effed played had been granted, and their
Lordthips would fee, that the Sheriff could not put
the writ in execution without idcurring contempt in
the Court of Chancery.—The Coral eulaiged the
Rule till next Term.

PAYNE V. WAINWILICnT.
This was a motion calling on the Plaintiff to pay
into Court certain monies depofited in the hands of a
Sheriff's officer, named Huff, under the following
circumitunces : The Defendant having been arrefted
on a Saturday night. and carried to Huff's houfe, fent
for his Solicitor the neat morning ; and finding there
were no means of getting his liberty next day, placed
in the hands of the officer a depolit of 6oL the amount
of the debt, and tol. to defray the cons. He put in
bail to the action, and called on the officer to refund
the depbfit. but was told the debt had been handed
to the Plaintiff ; at the fame time a tender was made
0141. stat. 6d. being the balance of tol. of the colts.
Mr. EILBRIII a infilied that the money had been paid
in &amp of the debt.
Mr. G.IIIOW contended, that the money had been
paid ncder the ftatute.
Mr.Easatna.—N The Defendant has not (worn to'

the merits."
Mr. td ice Laweencs.—" Merits or not, you have
nit eight to convert a depofit into a payment."
Lord Zot,easoitooon Paid, the Defendant might
hive paid the Money under the Aft. The sum hit
the Ikatute precifely.—Role made abfolute.
DIUMIIOIIO V. HOLLAND.
Mr. lawns had obtained a Rule to Thew eanfe
why, in this cafe, the verdia should not be set aftde
aid a new trial granted. Mr. Wiot.sv appeared to
Thew cattle *gale& the Rule.
Mi. juftice LAWIINCI, before whom the trial
took place at Stafford, Rated the falls to the Court.
Which were dsefe :—A perfon having died intestate,
the Plaintiff, Mumford, the principal creditor, ob-
tained letters of adminiftration upon his effees. His
wife, however, immediately afta his death, delivered
up a certain quantity of iron to the Defendant, which
the deeeafed bad bought from him during his life-
time, butuever paid for. The Defendant is the wife's
brother. The Plaintiff, conceiving hinifelf injured
by this proceeding, brought his anion of Trotter
*visa the Defendant, to recover the goods or their
value. A verdiß was given for the Plaintiff, fubjeft
to the opinion of the Conn, for whom a cafe was
peeposed The cafe wag, whether a creditor having
erioained what was really his due out of the tikes of
*decoded perfon, from one who was not a legal ad-
solniftrator, could be obliged to reftore the property
which he had fo obtained
Mr. Jaavts, in an elaborate fpeech, endeavoured to
prove, that by law the Defendant could not be forced
to reftore the property obtained in this manner, and
the grounds of his arguments were, that upon the au-
thority of all the decilions from Coke, Littleton, to the
time of Chief Plaice Holt, it had been declared, that
a credittir having obtained goods which were rightly
his due from a perfra who had the poffelion of thefe
goods, and appeared to be ell:attar, had a right to
retain them againll any claimant whatfoever. The
reason was, that the effetts being given to a real cre-
ditor who could recover by an &Rion at law, no
wrong or injury was done to any party. In Ibis cafe
the woe of the deceafed had certainly no mote legal
right to the goods of her hufband, than any indiffe-
rem perfon, but the had poffeffinn of them, and her
ad was good, as far as refpefted this tranfaftion.—
For it was clearly laid down in a multitude of autho-
rities, that a creditor is not obliged to confider, when
Sing for his doe from the cftates of a deceafed per-
fon, whether the perfon who ads is legally appointed.
it is fufficient for him, if he finds a perfop keep poi.
felon of and manage the affets from which'he claims;
and, though that perfon Ibould afterwards be found
to be executor de /extort, Rill, as far as concerns him,
the proceedings are confidered as legal. So in this
cafe, the wife of the decealcd, who was certainly only
executrix de ton tort, having delivered to the chtfend.inl
that which it was agreed on all hands was 1 is due,
her aft in this iefpea was legal, and the Plaintiff, the
true adminidrator, had no right to recover againil

Serjeant nn the other fide, contended
that the right of the Plaintiff to maintain his anion
in this cafe was clear and indifputablc. He might
admit all that had been laid during the elaborate ar.
giiment on the other fide, and dill the claims of his
client to recover was gond. Here was a woman who,
as Conn as the breath was out of her hnfoand's body,
had given away thefe goods to her brother, the
rdant. I-4e mull have known at IL.: time,
stelhis filler hail no tlght in the woild to deliver
t'dem. up. The law did pi oseet the credLor hi• 11,11
dealt with a perfro. who be a comic of adminidtation
e shiLited to the world Pane colour f.)r Li, title, In.,
videi .iseh creditor had teccived tot 1.41;: to the d:t
advainage of the other creditors, cr the a.!
missiftratnr. But this cafe appro on 11.;r: fact cr
it to be a Pal of fraud and colloiirm. The lia;!
no colour of adminifiration ; and the 11.,inzitY, t!.c
lawful mentor, did futlain a ferinui. :rjute by th,e
delivery of there aids to tie I'l4;n'il. w• the efreOs
of the deceafcd were rot CtHicicnt to ratify his own
debt.

I.ord ELtaaanent, $1 agreed in the jullice the
remarks of the Co lintel Iseentori,
eirj.a. led mull at 1c44 harc by a couefe of ind:rentei
adeninittration required* colour for tteW title, ly_feve
their ads can he made bgal, and nothing mutt be
done to the prejudice of t!..e tiz,htftit adminittrater.
If any one, by intlantly riL n pairefl•in n( the ef-
feeks rf a Acceaf;cl pctf.m. c proceed with them
les he ;leafed, a d-ior aer..kl be o;Tned for monllrw.,
an: a:::tatAr trt. ptrat•us

conrpitc to put a beggar into a houfe, who, at farm
as the owner was dead, might hand them out all his
eftens, and then bid defiance to the rightful owner.
A creditor had, by law, a right to maintain his claim
to goods obtained from a perfon, who was not at the
time a lawful executor ; but only under thefe cir-
ettillfialleCS, that the executor Jr /be fort flould have
the colour of a title, that the demand of a creditor
Mould be juft and legal, and that, by his obtaining
it, no injury was dome to any other perfon. Here
there was no colour of a title, and a ferinus injury
WAS, by the tranfaftion complained of, Curtained by
the legal adminidrator. He was, therefore, of opi-
nion, that the Plaintiff had a right to recover, and
that the verdiet for him ought to (land. The reit
of the Court concurred in this opinion, an/ the Rule
1 for a new trial was difcharged.
- ---- - -•- • • -

CANALS.-CORIMISSIONERS OF TH g NORFOLK CANAL V.

PAGE AND MILNE.
The Codtraillioners of the Norfolk Canal being
unable to proceed with the bu(inefs, on account of
the difputes between the two engineers appointed to
carry the All of Parliament into execution. applied
to the Court for a mandamus to oblige thofe gentle-
men to go on in fome way or other.
Mr. ADAMS, Counfel for Mr. Milne, Wetted to
this mandamus, on the account. that his client had
differed from Sir Thomas Page, the other engineer,
upon an important point, about which the Ad% was
not peremptory. and it would be extremely hard in
this cafe t. rend thole two gentlemen to the King's
Bench prilun, to force them to come to fome agree.

went.
The Court obferved. that the A& empowered the
parties to chuofe an umpire, and accordingly order-
ed that this fhuuld be done. To this all the parties
agreed. MONDAY, jaw. 30.
This being the Aurtiverfary of the Martyrdom of
King Charles, the fame was obferved as a holiday
in the refpeEtive Courts of Law. Mr. Jullice Goose
attended in this Court to charge the Grand Jury for
all. England, which he did in very few words • alto
to jullify bail, and to difcharge lofolvent Debtors ;
of the latter defcription was a decent-looking man,
named Annefley Sine, to whore liberation Mr. Hove LL
the barriller objated, obferving that he held in his
hand an affidavit, which let forth that Mr. Slue had
obtained money under pretence of procuring places
under Government, and was farther defenptive of
great credulity on one fidc, and mach knavery on'
the other. He was, however, aware that would not
operate to prevent the prifoner's getting his difcharge
under the Aft, though it might be an argument why
he fhould be remanded till further enquiry was
made. Mr. Shee was then remanded, and his Lord-
(hip, after hearing one or two motions of courfe, quit-
ted the Bench, and the Court broke up.

PALACE COURT, JAN 17.
PAN FOLD V. YOUNGER.

The Plaintiff in this cafe is a hackney coachman.
the Defendant an officer in the army. The cattle of
anion and the evidence we briefly narrate as follows:
On the 4th of Noveniber laft the Plaintiff being with
his coach at the end of Old Gravetlane, was called
off the (land to take up a fare on Wapping Wall,
after remaining there two hours, he took up the
Captain, and drove him to Alfred place, Newington;
on being afked what. was his fare ? he faid 4s. 6d.
for three hours, and 6d. for back carriage, and a dif-
puce following, the coachman experienced a fevere
beating. The Jury gave him a verdia of three gui-
neas damages.