Star.
London, England, 1802-11-10 00:00:00

DUNCAN V. REEVES.

Mr. GARROW moved for a rule to thew cattle
why the defendant fhould not be difcharged on
filing common bail: this he moved on an affidavit,
which hated, that the defendant had a fituation at
one of the theatres, and lodged at the houfe of
the plaintiff. Some difpules arofe between the
parties, and the plaintiff caufed the defendant to
be apprehended on a charge of picking his pocket,
which was entirely without foundation, and the
defendant was difcharged, and the matter was
fuppofed to be abandoned, but from advice, which
. was not the belt, the defendant commenced an
action againft -the plaintiff, and that gave birth to
the prefent. fiiit, which was an actin of trover, for
that the defendant had taken, and detained, and
kept in his polleffion, a defk with certain deeds,
&c. of the value of five hundred pounds, upon
which the defendant had been under the neceffity
of giving bail to the sheriff; but it would be im-
poilible for him to procure two perfons to juftify
in the fum of toool. for men of Inch property did
not like to hazard it in a fait on behalf of a man'
who was poor ; fo that, if he was put to the com-
mon courfe of juitifying bail, before he could pro-
cure his freedom, he muft go to jail, and that
would be his abfolute ruin, for he would hole his
fituation. On application to the party, he laid,
" it was an action brought becaufc the defendant
had brought one againft him :" the truth was, it
was brought to make the parties cry " quits," as
the vulgar phrafe was. The plaintiff in the action
Paid the defendant had got the key—" How have
you arrested the man for 50001. ?" He Paid, "If
I choofe to call this defic an article worth t ooel.
you have no remedy, if Z arrest you for it, but to
-find bail." This was the cafe here, and this was
properly called fpunging-houfe law : he believed
the affidavit was taken from the precedent of Mr.
Humphry Triftram Pcitter, who arrefted a perfon
in an action of trover for a piece of furniture (f
the value (to him) of socl. which turned out after-
wards to be an E. 0. tableAvbich was molt fit for
. the fire in which it was confumed. This praCtice
was alarming, and would be the abfolute ruin of
this poor man, unlefs then. vas fome remedy for
it. —Here Mr. GARROW read over the affidavit,
and contended that it was not fufficient to bold the
defendant to bail,; but the Court held it to be
fufficient, and obferved that the motion would not
be affented to ; for difcharging the defendant on
filing common bail would be to try the merits of
the carafe—a practice which the Court of Kin's
Bench difavowed,kut hinted that the Court might
pollibly of ft the defendant in another way, which
was with a rule, calling on the plaintiff to Phew
eaufe why, upon departing in Court the key of
the lodging, and thereby delivering up poireflion
of the articles, for the convetfion of which the
action was brought, the defendant fhould not be
difcharged ; but this mutt be moved- upon a fpe-
cid affidavit.
Mr. GARROW Paid, he would take care to avail
his client of this kind fuggeftion, and loon come
prepared with proper materials before the Court,
for that this fpunging-houfe law was abfolutely
infufferable.