Star.
London, England, 1820-02-24 00:00:00

SNOWDON V. NI tFORD AND OTHERS.

This was an action against the defendants, who
are Commissioners in Bankruptcy, for 'wrongfully
committing the plaintiff to his Majesty's jail of New-
gate. The ground of commitment was, that the
plaintiff had not retained satisfactory answers upon
his. examination, relative to the estate. and disposition
of his effects.
Wm. Henry Brown was the first witness called,
and, after stating that he was the Keeper of New-
gate, produced the Warrant by virtue of which he re-
coived Samuel Adam Snowdon, of Plymouth-dock,
into his custody.
James Tanner deposed, that he was present at the
time when the plaintiff was committed. The questions
put to him referred to his family expenses ; and in
answer to them he stated, that he had no account ex-
cept what appeared upon his general balance. There
was considerable noise and confusion in the room
during the latter part of the examination.
Mr. Brown being again called, stated, that the
plaintiff had remained in his custody from the Bth
of August to the 10th of September, when he was
carried, in pursuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpits,
before Mr. Justice Bayley, who, after communicating
with his Lordship, ordered him to be discharge-I.
William Erasmus Hardy, Clerk of the Papers
at Newgate, recollected the plaintiff's coming to
that prison in August last. He was first lodged
On the north side, but was subsequently removed to.
the Chapel, or, as it is sometimes called, the Misde-
meanour-yard. He conducted the plaintiff, on the
10th of September, to the Judge's house, in Bedford-
square. From thence they repaired to the house of
the Lord Chief Justice, where the plaintiff was dis-
charged. He had not previously been carried be-
fore any Court, nor had any Writ of Habeas Corpus
been before sued out on his behalf.
Benjamin Tanner described himself to be an ac-
countant, and said he was at Guildhall during the
p!aintiffs examination, on the Bth of August. He
stood near the table at which Mr. Mitford and the
ether defendants sat. The examination was conducted
by Mr. Mitford. One of the questions put related
to family expenses, and to this it was replied, that
those items were contained in the London account,
and that the plaintiff could give no further informa-
tion. Mr. Mitford then exclaimed, '• Here I make
my stand," and immediately directed a warrant of
commitment to be drawn. Before this was done, the
plaintiff more than once, and with much humility,
declared himself ready to answer any question that
might be put to him, but protested against their pre-.
sent proceeding as altogether illegal. He added,
that of this they themselves must be aware, as they
had been afraid to meet the question fairly upon a '
former occasion. Mr. Milford's manlier was ex-
tremely violent, and he chose rather to examine him-
self, than suffer the Counsel to perform that office.
On his cross-examination, the witness stated that
he had been an accountant three or four years, having
formerly been a ship-owner, but on losing his ships,
and becoming bankrupt, had been reduced to the
necessity of following other pursuits. lie bad' been
pending his commission,
imprisoned illegally himself,
but had subsequently obtained his certificate. HO
attended at Guildhall in consequence of a note which
he had received, and be held some communication
with the plaintiff during the examination of the lat-
ter; Mr. Mitford ordered him and others to remove
to a more distant situation, and it was not till the
plaintiff was threatened with a commitment that he,

I became violent or clamorous. Mr. Snowdon hadi
certainly then remonstrated with vehemence against '
the illegality of the proceeding.
crone Gedd, a provision merchant, deposed, that
he was accidentally present at the inquiry before the
Commissioners. It appeared to him-that the plaintiff)
offered every kind of explanation previous to his
commitment. He had no acquaintance with him at
the time, but was forcibly struck with the personality
that seemed to characterize the demeanour of Mr.
Mitford. It was with much emphasis, and in a very
peremptory manner, that he said, " Here I take
my stand," and immediately ordered the plaintiff
into custody.
Mr. SCARLETT now submitted, that the under-
taking specified in the conditional Rule, by virtue of
which diis action was brought in the County of Mid-
dlesex, had not been complied with. The order of
the Judge for discharging Mr. Snowdon was the only
act proved to have been done out of the City of Lon-
don, and that was an act not material to the present
issue. The only question which the Court bad to
try was, whether the plaintiff had been improperly
committed?
Mr. ADOLPHUS and Mr. D. POLLOCK argued, on
the other side, that such evidence was not material.
The plaintiff being deprived of his liberty, every mo-
ment of his durance must be considered as a fresh
trespass and imprisonment.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICS held it to be quite clear,
that the plaintiff had net satisfied his undertaking.—
. The journey, if he might so call it, to the Judge's
house, was matter of accident, and was not material
either to sustain the Rule or to recover damages.—
Nonsuit.