Star.
London, England, 1802-06-07 00:00:00

OF HERTFORD.

This was an indiertment ?pint the inhabitants
of Hertfordihire, for not repairing a public bridge
acrofs the river, which feparates that county from
Ellis. The plea let up by the Defendants was,
that the county was not bound to repair it, but
that the obligation lay upon William Field, Li 1.
toe Lord of the Manor of Stantlead Abbey. To
prove this, evidence WAS given cf the timber with
which the bridge had been repaired 5o years ago,
having been felled upon Mr. Field's land, and by
his orders conveyed to the bridge. This folitary
iutiance was not deemed ludieient to take tl bur-
th.:n oif the county, to impede it on an individual;
accordingly :he jwry forud a vern:a for the

tARZY V. MORRIS.

The Plaintiff and Defendant are Potters, and
11anulafturers of Sugar Isiouicis, a butinefs fol-
lowed by but few perfons in the kingdom ; and
this kiwis was brought to recover damages inf.
tamed by the Plaintiff, by reafon of the Defen-
dant's having enticed a perfon of the name of
Deal, a Labourer, out of tie fervice of the Plain-
tiff, after he had commenced, and before he had
nailed a piece of work for him, and harbouring
that perfon, by employing him in his, the Defen-
dant's fervice, after notice that he had quitted the
Plaintiff's fervice, and kit h:s work unfinifhed.
The law of this cafe is clearly laid down in 6
Term Rep. 221, by which it is Rated, " that an
ajion will lie for tecciving or continuing in em-
ployment, the Servant of another, after notice
that he is that Servant—That a perfon who con-
tra6l; with another to do any. piece of work for
lira, is the fervant of that other, until that work

is finifhed, and therefore no one elk has a right
to employ him until Inch work is finifhed."
The circumftances of this cafe were dick: Deal
the laixarier had worked for the Plaintiff feveral
years. In July laff he had a piece of work oa
Nand, and left his i‘lafier, when there were about
eight days labour remaining to finilh it. He went
to tlvz Defendant who hired him. The Plaintiff
fent to the Defeniant a IC:ter, {dying, g, I beg leave
to acquaint yon, that NVilliarn Deal whom you
hare in your employment as a potter, is engaged
at my Manufaaory to work, which work lie has
left unfinifhed, and-I trial, after this notice, that
Too, as a tradefman, will not detain or harbour
im; if you do, I Ilan be under the neretlity of
commencing an attion againft yon.—lfaac Parry."
The Defendant told the hearer of the letter, that
the Defendant, had had nothing to do in the
great unile, that he thould like to have a
Much at it—that if D.:al ow.:•I h It. Parry any
tistmey, he would pay IlaCenger raid,

61 it was not the money that the Plaintiff wanted,;
but the labour of the man who had left his fervice."
The Defendant replied, is You may tell Mr. Parry
that I have as many 13Acks to give to the Lawyers
as he has Moulds." He kept Deal in his employ-
ment; the work of Deal at the Plaintiff's faoftory
was left tmfinifhed.
Lord ELLSNHOROUCH obferved there was no
cvidcn:z of the Defendant's enticing the workman,
aim his mailer, hut there was enough of the har-
bouring :die r notice,aud that was ildlicient to fup-
port tins aerion.
Verdid for the Plaintiff, damages 51. 55. being
the value of the labour required to finillt the work.

HUNTER AND ANOTILEN. V. ►LLLIN AND CADELI..

This w.ts all Anion brought nominally againft
the late Sheriffs, but in fubflance againft one of
their Officers, who give them fecurtty for their
conduit, for the efcape of a perfon of the name of
Henry Hunt, who was arredcd by one of the Of-
ficers of the Sheriff of Milldlefex, for tool. at the
fuit of the above Plaintiffs for bufinefs done by
them as Coachirainters. He was arrefted at his
father's houfe, and went up (lairs, and the Officer
with him, for his great coat, and as became down
he flipt by the parlour door (where the Plaintiff,
Hunter, was fitting, be having come there to (hew
Hunt to the Officer) and went out of the houfe and
was Peen no more. The Sheriff being called upon
to return the Writ, returned, "That by command
of the Writ, I did arrelt and take the body of the
within named Henry Hunt, within my Bailiwick,
whole body I fafely kept, until with force and
arms he rzfcued himfelf out cf my cliflody, and
that afterwards and tip to the time of the return of
the find, Writ, the raid Henry Hunt was not found
in my Bailiwick."
. . _

Mr. Glass cnntcnded that this return 'of the
Sheriff' to the Writ in nirellion, intlead uf furnifit-
ing the Plaintiff with anAetion againd the Sheriff,
was an anfwer to fuch Atclion, for it anted a re-
foie, which was an excufe for the Sheriff upon an
efcape after caption upon mcfn e ',weft; it was other-
wife where the IM'endant was taken in Execution,
becaufe in the latter cafe the Sheriff can mile the
Pop Conti:a:us ; but he has no loch power in cafe
niarrelt upon mineprocefi, and here there was no
count in the dchoation that the return of the She-
riff was falfe. For tilde reafons, which he argued
ably, Mr. Gtis as fubmitted that the Plaintiffs thould
be noniiiited.

Lord ELL ENTIOROUG H having looked at the Re.
cord was of opinion that the return was in fub-
(tance fallified, and therefore refilled to nnnfuit
the Plaintiffs, and the caufe was proceeded in.—
It was then (hewn that the Plaintiffs' Bill upon
Hunt was reafonable, &c. but that the Defen-
dant, Hunt, was infolvent, and had gone to Ire-
land to avoid his creditors' purfuit, &c.
Lord ELLINSOROVOH laid down to the Jury,
that this aftion was maintainable as it Rood, but
that the plaintiffs ought not, by this verdia, to
be placed in a better condition than they would
have been in had they polleffed the body of Hunt.
He thought, that at all events, the plaintiffs in this
cafe ought to he reimburfed the tolls they had
been at in caufing the arra, &c. Now, the aflion
being by original, he underftood from a very intel-
ligent Officer who fat under him (Mr. Lowton,
Clerk of Nifi Prius) that the expences were, in
filch a cafe, about 12 guineas ; to thi► the Jury
would add what they thought was fair to conjec-
ture as the fum which the plaintiffs might have
obtained from Hunt, had their arrefl been effedual.
The verdict in this cafe again(' the Sheriff would
not difcharge Hunt.—Verdi(t for the Plaintiffs.—
Damages 401.