Star.
London, England, 1802-02-13 00:00:00

WILSON V. ALLAN.

This cafe came before the Court on a motion to
fet afide a writ of inquiry. The aCtion was brought
for falfe imprifonment by the Plaintiff, a retail
merchant at Gainiborough, againft the Defendant,
4 clothier in Lancafhire. An inhabitant of Gainf.
borough, named Charles Wilton, had been in.
debted to the Defendant and a writ had been taken
out againft him. The4ifficer charged with the
execution of the writ, Iffiagining the Plaintiff to
be the perfon named in it, went to his houfe, not
finding him, threatened his relations, broke open
feveral doors, and behaved in a violent manner.
The Plaintiff at laft, to prevent diffurbance, fur-
-1 rendered himfelf, and was kept in cuftody feveral
hours. The officer then found that he was wrong,
as this Charles Wilfon had never had any dealings
with Mr. Allan whatever. He liberated him of
courfe, but from, the uproar in the houfe the whole
town was informed of his misfortune ; an opinion
prevailed that he was bankrupt ; no one would
truft him any longer, and all his creditors came
in with their demands. He therefore inftituted
this aCtion to recover a compenfatinn for the injury
he had fuflained, and the Defendant having let
judgment go by default, the Jury awarded him Sol.
—On the part of the Defendant it was now urged
that there damages were exceffive, and objeftions
were taken as to the manner in which the trial had
been condueted before the Sheriff. After very
able arguments from the Bar, the Court advifed
the Plaintiff to confent to the damages being paid
down, and it was agreed that the verdiEt thould
Rand for 301.

FEBRUARY 12.

SAVAGZ V. SHEPART.

In a cafe wherein an Attorney had been rued for
a debt, to execution, and taken under it, he fent
for the plaintiff, who came to him in prifon, limed
to him the mifery of his wife and children from
his confinement, and he entreated that he might
be enlarged, upon an undertaking to pay the whole
debt and coils in three months. He was enlarged
accordingly, but paid not a Shilling to the plain-
tiff, and at the diflance of three years he was taken
in execution—upon which he moved to be dif.
charged, on the ground that it was contrary to
law to take a perfon in execution twice for the
fame debt.

This was related under the fpecial circumftances
of the cafe, of the defendant being an attorney,
and therefore to be fuppofed to know perfealy well
what he was about, and that of his being let out
for his own accommodation, and that of the cafe
being extremely hard upon the plaintiff, for that
if the defendant was not fet at large, the plaintiff
would be without a remedy. He had contented,
not only that his goods might be taken in execu-
tion, but his perfon alto.
Mr. Juffice Gaon Paid, that the condua of this
defendant, confidering that he was an attorney,
and confidering the great kindnefs which had been
(hewn to him, and under all the circumftances of
the cafe, his condua was abfolutely fhameful and
abominable, and might have a fevere effea on
defendants confined for debt, by hardening their
creditors again( them ; but Rill, the rule of law
was inflexible in this cafe. That rule was, that
no man could be taken twice in execution for the
fame debt. Rules muff not be overturned for the
purpofe of accommodating the circumftances of a
particular cafe, and therefore this rule for the de-
fendant's difcharge muff be made abfolute, but
without coils, becaufe the queftion of coils was
within the difcretion of the Court. Rule abfolute,
without coils.

Till ZINO C. THZ JUSTICES OF MIDDLISEX.
Mr. Juitice Gxos a raid, the Court had confider-
ed the arguments in this cafe, and had looked
through the AIE upon which the motion for the
Mandamus was founded. The refult of their con•
fideration was, that they were of opinion the Man-
damus ought not to be granted. They were of
opinion that the Bell Dock was wanted to enlarge
the new intended Dock, and by the At all ground
wanted for that purpofe was to be contained with-
in a certain boundary line, which boundary line,
by name, excluded Bell Dock. They gathered
this purpofe from. he affidavit of Mr. Rennie, the
Engineer, notwithitanding it was alfo Rated that
the ground in qneflion was wanted for a coffredars,i
and a rail-way, yet 'they were of opinion that in
fubilance, it was wanted to enlarge the London-
Dock, and therefore, by the t R and zsth fedions
of the Ad, it mat be within the boundary line.—
It was true that by the si6th fedion of the fame
Alt, the Company could take any convenient fpot
near for making a road-way, and "for other por-
t*, t;" but the Court were of opinion that the
words " other istpfes" meant fubfidiary purpofes,
dalfdart "merit. They were, therefore, clearly of
opinion that the Mandamus ought not to go.