Star.
London, England, 1804-11-16 00:00:00

lAD TITIII.-NESS[ V. STS•ENSON.

Mr. Serjeant ON,Low, in this cafe, applied to the
Court for a Rule to (hew cattle why the Defendant
lbould not be difcharged out of cußody, with the
coils of the application, upon the ground of irregu-
larity in the proceedings of the Plaintiff.
In order to underhand the cafe completely, it will
he neceffary to mention the circnmßances. The ac-
tion was commenced about to or 14 months ago, by
the Plaintiff, Heffe, again,* the Defendant, Dolor
Stevenfon, upon the following grounds:—Coopes, an
ingenious man, had invented a method of manufac-
turing Paper from Straw, and ellablifhed a mann-
fiaory for that purport-. He afterwards fold his
(hares to tilf...rent pertains, and one of them was fold
to Dr. Stevenfon, the Defendant in the prefent ac-
tion.' Dr. Stevenfon rutin afterwards difpnfed of this
[hare to Mr. Heffe, the Plaintiff, for t aool. and coo-
veyed it in due form. Not long after this tranfaaiou,
it was dilkovered that at the time Coopes had con-
veyed the !bare in epiellion to Dr.,Stevenfon, be was
a bankrupt, and confequently could not give a good
title. The validity of the title given by Stevenfon to
WAS dcltroyed by the fame ciretimaance, and
the adion was originally broogla by the Plaintiff
again!! the Defendant, for the purport of procuring
either a good tide, or die refforation of the ptuchale

money. A terdiet was given for 4lse slsisiilF. tout titer
Court delayed judgment for- force time in order to
allow the Defendant an opportunity of applying to
the ACtgnees of the bankrupt Coopes for the confir-
mation of the title. This could not he procured
within the time fpecified, and of courfe the Plaintiff
proceeded fer his money, and Cued out a writ offseri
facies, which was executed; bus the tale of the De-
fendant's goods and clunks only produced about
sou Pounds, fo that (even hundred Rill remained
due. For this he brought his anion of debt
upon the judgment, and obtained a writ of retest ad
fatilfaciadsam, againft the body of the Defendant,
who was thus taken into cuflody.
The grounds of the motion to the Court for the
difcharge of the Defendant upon common bail, was
the irregularity of the proceeding for it was conten-4
ded by Serjeants now and Sn or alit), that after
the Plaintiff had made his eleition of carrying on his
fait by a writ of execution, he could not how change
his mode of proceeding by retorting to a writ of raper
ad fatisfaeiestdasa to recover the remainder of his debt.
If their Lordibips (hould not agree with them in this
opinion, (till the Court had a difcretionary power of
felting prifoners at liberty in cafes of this fort, upon
common bail, if they Mould fee good reafons for It,
and the circumtlahces of the prefent cafe were fuck
as rendered the exercife of this difcretion extremely
proper on the prefent occafion. Serjeant Barcar for
the Plaintiff was heard againft the motion.
Sir. Mawsrtas.o obferved, that anions of debt
upon Judgment were not to be favoured. Still,
however, he faw no reafon why the Plaintiff, becaufe
he had adopted ooe mode of proceeding, which after
doing its duty, had only produced part of the debt,
&mid be excluded from the employment of Tome
other mode to recover the remainder. He did not
fee any particular occalion here for the Court siting
any dircretionary power. Upon the whole he was of
opinion that the Court could not, in the prefent in-
fiance, comply with the application in felting the pri-
toner at liberty upon common bail.
The Rule was accordingly difcharged with coils.
It was underfiood that the Affignees had at length
agreed to give Mr. Heffe a valid title, but as the con-
cern was likely to turn out a bad one, he refuted to
accept of it.

■oViriu i 6.

In a cafe in which it was Rated, that it had been
agreed by the parties that aol. Mould be paid as the
amount of damage.. It was alto allowed on all
hands, that fol. had been paid by the Defendant's
attorney to the attorney of the Plaintiff. In tome
time after this the Plaintiff changed his attorney, and
the fecond agent gave notice to the gentleman ailing
for the Defendant, that the remaining fum of tot.
fhould be paid to him, and not to the perfon whi
had received the former futr. He however alkdged
that he had not been paid the amount of his coils.—
The attorniei then applied to Come of the gentlemen
at the bar who had been concerned in the fiat, for
their opinion as to the meaning of the agreement and
the role of Court. Not fatiafied with their declara.
Lion as to the fpirit of the agreement, they applied to
the Prothonotary of the Court. They were Rill, how-
ever, as far from being reconciled as ever, and three
learned Serjeants of the Law were retained to (up-
port the relpeeive cafes upon an appeal to the Court.
Lord Chief Julliee Hamm eta obi-erred, that there
was always fomething fufpicious in a cafe in which
a gentleman kept mwney in his bands Which lie had
a right to pay to another. The clients might per-
haps be very well able to bear this fort of litigation ;
but he mull oblate, that it Rill was not very right
that a paltry fquabble &mild be kept up about the
payment of tor by which the original turn would
be three times increafed. He did- not think mils
that the tot. fhould be paid with interell, on account
of the extraordinary delay, and defired that the bufi-
nefs fhould be fettled before the Prothonotary as
fpeedily as poffible.--.ltule enlarged.