Star.
London, England, 1822-11-22 00:00:00

COTTERILL V. WANT AND PAGE.

In this case an injunction had some time since been
obtained to restrain the defendants, Messrs. Mant
and Page, from attaching certain property in the
hands of the plaintiff. The plaintiff now applied to
have the injunction perpetuated.
Mr. HART stated, that in 1814 Messrs. Chatteris,
Mainwaring, and Co. bankers, became insolvent. The
creditors of the firm agreed amongst themselves to
supersede a commission of bankruptcy, upon receiv-
ing payment of their demands at the rate of 10s. in
the pound. A part of this sum, to the amount of
7s. 6d. had been paid, and Mr. Mainwaring gave
notes for the remaining 2s. Gd. Among the credi-
t-ors was a person named Hancock, who received
7s. 6d. in the pound, and accepted the notes of Mr.
Mainwaring for the rest of his claim. Mr. Main-
wat subsequently, at a time when he no longer
acted as a trader, consigned all his teal and personal
estate to the plaintiff, to be by him appropriated to
the payment of the 2s. Gd. notes. The notes which
had been paid to Mr. Hancock passed from his hands
into those of the defendants, who, by a process cf the
Lord Mayor's Court, attached the property which
had been consigned to the plaintiff by Mr: Mainwa-
ring. In consequence, the plaintiff applied for and
obtained an injunction to restrain the defendants from
proceeding under the attachment, on the ground that
the property was subject to an equitable trust.
Mr. HEALD, for the defendants, said, that the pre-
sent motion was made merely for the purpose of de-
ciding the question of costs ; the property in dispute
having been entirely distributed. When the case was
formerly argued, the question turned principally upon
the jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor's Court. The
Counsel for the defendants were instructed to con-
tend principally, that the Lord Mayor's Court had
authoti:y to attach property in the city of London,
even although it were held in trust for equitable pur-
poses. The Lord Chancellor declared that it was im-1
possible the Lord Mayor's Court could have such ju-
risdiction, and therefore he granted the Injunction.
He would not now touch upon this point, but would
convince the Court that there was no equitable ground
for maintaining the Injunction. . The chief argument
employed on the other side was, that Mr. Main-
Waring had consigned his property to the plaintiff, in
trust for his creditors. But this deed could only bind
those creditors who signed it. This, Mr. Hancock
never did ; in fact, the deed of assignment was not
executed until five months after the notes became
due. If Mr. Hancock had himself held the notes,
what was to prevent him from attaching the property
of Mr. Mainwar ing ? The case could not be altered
by the notes being in the hands of the defendants,
who, it was sworn, gave a valuable consi.leration for
them. Mr. Hart had stated that Mr. Mainwaiing
was not a trader at the time the deed of .assignment
was executed, but that fact did not appear in evidence.

The VicE-Ctin NCELLOR-11 he were a trader when
he assigned the estate, the deed was fraudulent against
all the ciediturs who did not come in under it.
Mr. HART—CaII it be fraudulent for a man to as-
sign all his estate for all his creditors?
The VICE-CriANCELLOR—Yes*; that very argument
was employed when the question was first decided.

Mr. WILBRAtIASI, for the defendants, said he un-
derstood that the Lord Mayor's Court teas competent
to decide upon the validity of the deed, and that it
was contrary to the practice of that Court to issue
an attachment against property which was subject to
eq.litable trusts declared by a valid deed.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR ()Inc' ved that, if such were
die fact, the application to the Court of Chancery
was evidently unnecessary. It would be necessary to
obtain evidence of the practice of the Lord Mayor's
Court. Fcr this purpose he would propose to the
Recorder a question in the following form :—lf A
assign property to B for trust purposes, can C attach
the property under the process of the Lord Mayor's
Court, supposing the deed of assignment to be valid.
The case must stand over until after the Recorder
answered this question by certificate.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOVEMBER 21.
ILCIIESTER JAIL.
THE KING V. WILLIAM BRIDLE.

This was an information filed by the ATTORNEY-
G 1 NERAL against the defendant, late Keeper of ll-
chester Jail, for unlawful, cruel, and oppressive treat-
ment towards two persons confined in his custody,
named Mary Cuer and Thomas Gardiner. At the
trial before Mr. Justice RICHARDSON, at the last As-
sizes for the County of Somerset, the defendant was
acquitted upon that part of the charge which related
to the treatment of Mary Cuer, but was convicted of
cruelty and oppression towards Thomas Gardiner.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now moved that the de-
fendant be brought tip for judgment, and the defend-
ant appealed accordingly upon the floor.
The defendant put in an affidavit in mitigation of
punishment, representing a history of his character
and conduct during a period of twenty-two years, and
urging his meritorious services in that interval, as the
ground for a lenient consideration of his case in re-
ceiving the judgment of the Court, for an act which,
though unlawful, did not proceed from any vindic-
tive or unworthy feeling towards the person named•
in the information. His father had been an indus-
trious tradesman, and became unfortunate in his cir-
cumstances. At the lige of 16, the defendant, being
one of tea children, left the parental roof to seek his

unwilling to remain any longer a burden upon his
.
:obeli industry: He, enteseds_regitnri of fenerble
cavalry, as a private, and in consequence of his good
own f°"111411/ith49t.11 *billing ip, hm.petc• ket. , being
[conduits was successively raised to the rank of Cur-
oral;Ser
situations
ttloanns he baddActingatacqunairtteerritad
this
r,
and.aa
st
good opinion of histommanding Officers. After this
he became second mate of a prison-ship at Woolwicb,
of which esteemin e
which office he held for. a period of six years, during
which his humanity and kind attention had given
universal satisfaction, and had even inspired the un-
fortunate persons under his care with sentiments of
esteem, affection, and respect. A vacancy in the office
of Ilchester Jailer having occurred, he became one
of thirty candidates for the situation, and in conse-
quence a
roofnt he
Graham, high
E testimonial
sso p
e ri inn thei ns fern:lnv itch;
ships, he was elected to the office in preference to all
other competitors. Even after he had been elected, ,
Mr. Graham, who had the highest opinion of him,
endeavoured to induce him to resign the appointment
by offering to procure him the command of a prison-
ship, but he declined the good intention of that gentle.
man, and accepted the office to which he was elected.
Upon entering into his new situation, he discovered
several defects in the discipline of Ilchester Jail, and
endeavoured to ameliorate the condition of the pi-
sciners by every means in his power, and, by his active
humanity, was instrumental in procuring the use of
irons lighter by one half in weight than had been
theretofore adopted. During the time he had been in
this situation, his conduct had been the subject of
general approbation on the part of the visiting Ma-
gistracy, and he was an object of esteem and respect
to the numerous unhappy persons placed in his• cus-
tody, whose comfort in sickness and in health was
his .perpetual study. With respect to the individual
towards whom he was alleged to have acted-with in-
humanity and oppression, he stated that that person
had been capitally convicted of housebreiking, but
in consequence of Royal mercy, his -sentence had
been commuted from death to eighteen months im-
prisonment and hard labour. This individual, from.
his early habits of depravity and vice, was indolent,
morose, turbulent, and utterly irreclaimable. In
vain had kindness and humanity been exerted to
bring him to a proper sense of his situation. In re-
turn for these efforts he manifested the utmost ob-
stinacy, violence, and obdurate misconduct.' Re-
peated imprecations and curses were in his mouth
against the Magistracy. In-order to avoid perform.
ing the labour which formed part of his. sentence,le
fiequently pretended illness, although, according to
the certificate of the prison surgeon, he was in rude.
health, and capable of performing his work. For the
purpose of endeavouring to reclaim this individual,
and of guarding *against his• contagions example to
the 'other prisoners, be was indicced, at the sugges-
tion of the surgeon, to apply the remedy, and resort
to the indiscreet act which was the subject of prose-
cution. The unlawfulness of the act he did not pre-
sume to doubt, because it was contrary to the prison
regulations of this country ; but he solemnly pro-
tested, that in this proceeding he was influenced by
no personal motive of malice or hostility towards the
individual, the circnmstance being more the result
of accident than of premeditation. Admitting, how-
ever, that he had exceeded his duty in this individual
instance, he trusted that this solitary act of indiscre•
don would be amply counterbalanced by his previous
good conduct, and a lite devoted to the public service
in the humb situations in which he had been
employed, with,..lt impeachment or question. In
conclusion, he urged his filial piety towards his aged
parents, who were dependent upon him for support,
and to whose maintenance he had largely contributed
out of the savings of a laborious lite—the mental
agony to which he had been subjected from libels
upon his character and conduct previous to his trial ;
and, upon the whole, he besought the Court to con-
sider, that in this proceeding he was not influenced
by personal or unworthy motives.
The affidavits of Sir John Acland, the Earl of
Cork and Ossory; Captain Smith, commander of one
of the hulks at Woolwich ; Colonel Anderson, com-
manding the Ist Regiment of Somersetshire Fenci-
bles ; and of several of the County Magistrates ; .the
Clerk of the Peace, and of other Gentlemen of the
County were put in, giving defendant an excellent cha-
racter for humanity, and the faithful and meritorious
discharge of his duty. Several affidavits of indivi-
duals, relatives of unfortunate persons who had been
under the defendant's charge, were also read, speak-
ing in the highest terms of the benevolence and hu-
manity of the defendant towards those unhappy per.
sons.—No affidavits were put in for the prosecution,
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS then rose and addressed the
Court in mitigation of the punishment. He urged,
with considerable feeling and eloquence, that, consi-
dering the expense which the defendant had sus-
tained, the anxiety of mind which he had suffered,
and the dismissal from his office, he had already been
sufficiently punished for the offence of which he had
been found guilty.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY inquired if. there were not
other charges against him,? .
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS.--" Ob, yes! my Lord, more
numerous than the letters of the alphabet, and all
originating in one individual, to-whom he had not de-
sired to advert,. but wherever he came anarchy and
confusion followed ; like the individual of old, it
might be said of. him, that' where his footsteps fell
the, grass never grew."
The CHIEF JusTicx.—". We had, better refrain
from this topic." . .
. .
Mr. C. F. WILLIAMS resumed.—Ho bad no .wish
to advert to this subject, and would press it no fur-
ther, but would now call upou their Lordships in tbe
name of the. Public, whose 'faithful servant the de••
Pendant had been for so many years,..in-the name:of
the hundreds of prisoners who would bear testimony
to Iris humanity and kindness, in the. name. of the I
highly respectable Magistrates-of the county who
had this day come forward to bear testimony to• his
good conduct ; op all these gfeu,nds,he. would humbly
ask of their Lordships, rhar.the sentence they pro-
nounced' on the defendant should be such only as
would deter others from falling into such erfors of
judgment, but not such as from its severity the Pub- .
lic might deplore.
.• Mt: Ensitus followed on. the same .side, and In
addition to the arguments of Mr. Williaais, ar4rd as
an extenuation of the defendant's conduct, the diffi-
culties of the situation in which he was placed, the
riotous conduct* uf the prisoner Gardiner, and the

absolute tteeessity there lrat, toirtuaTe.subardi nation
in the prison.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in aggravation, ob.
served, the defendant was not. dismissed from his
situation in consequence of the'chirges contained in
this indictment, but upon several other charges. He
admitted thtt the defendant must hive suffered great
anxiety, and have been put to considerable expense,
• and' as desirous that. he should have the benefit of
,the admission with their Lordships? He was like.
lavise ready to admit that the situation which the de.
fondant bad held was a difficult one; but the tines.
ton now before the Court was, whether a jailer, who
had of his, own will attempted to. introduce a ne..v
and illegal species of punishment into the prison of
which he had the controul, was a fit subject for pub.
lic prosecution and punishinent? It WAS not_becaow
an individual had forfeited his life to the laws of his
country that he was to be.made a subject of arbitrl:7.
and.capricious punishment, at the will of any indiv;.
dual. He (the Attorney-General) regretted to see
that an attempt had been made by affidavit to-clot,
say that the punishment of Gardener did not 43117-1
nate with the defendant, but with the surgeon. li
not the defendant recollect that when examined he..
fore the Magistrate he acknowledged that the putth:.•
ment originated with himself?
Mr. Justice BAYLEY--f‘ That fact is not before
Mr. Attorney-General."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it war so, notwith.
standing; but he would. admit, if the defendant de-
Fired it, that the punishment was sugge,ted by 11,2
surgeon. What if it was so? the defendant hl t
adopted it. How, he would ask, did it happen tLat
this novel punishment was not entered in the occur-
rence-book? There was indeed art entry, stating tLt
Gardiner was put into solitary confinement for
conduct, but not a word of the blister or the stra:.
waistcoat. He had no desire to press !raid upon tl:e
defendant, but was in the discharge of his duty,
a most 'painful one it was, to urge for the punish me: r
of any individual ; but whilst beheld the office
he had now the honour of holding, he must not suffer
his feelings so far to get the better of hini as to pre-
vent his performing his duty to the public. lie
thoUght if ever these was a case calling for investi-
gation it was the present. Wheie a per son hoL;!:!.,*
such a situation as the defendant held had conduced
himself as the defendant. had done; the higher t! •e
previous character the more dangerous was t!e
offence,. and the grewer the necessity of repressirg
it ; and he trusted their Lordships wouid, by their
judgment in this case, chew that it must h. represse.i.
He did not wish to withdraw from the consideration
of their Lordships the defendant's previous good cot;-
duct, but he must also remind their Lordships that a
serious charge had been. made against the c:fei,d-
ant ; that charge had been investigated, and he bad
been found guilty by a Jury t,f the county in w!:ich
he had desired to be tried. He (the Attorney.Ger.e-
ral) hoped he should not be charged with pressing
with unnecessary sever ity against the defendant. He
had now discharged his duty, and it only rer.airied
with their Lordships, in whom dr.! power was mot
wisely vested;to•say what punishment sheu7d
.Ile would only ask, that it might be such as
meet the defendant's ease, and deter others from
!ming the same course.
The LORD CHIEF Jl:sTicE, after consult;„'
the other Judges, directed that the defen,2.::it shot' J
be brought up to receive ;he judgment of the Cc...:t
to-morrow.