The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-01-24 00:00:00

1.- -...a

Xj4lPfl
A\
CO TOF QUDEN'S EITCH.--WEDrrEsiur,
(Sittings in Banco.)

*c.

STOCKDALE b. HANSARD.
It being generally known that this important case was spe-
Aully appointed for argument to-day, the court long before
the usual time for commencing business was crowded. There
was a most numerous' attendance of barristers.
Lord Denman, after delivering judgment in two cases of
!no public interest, directed the case of Stockdale v. Hansard
"to be called on, which was accordingly done, when
Mr. Richards said, in this case he appeared in behalf of
the Sheriffs, who were called upon to show cause why they
:should not pay over to the plaintiff the damages levied under
-the execution, and he had to move that the rule be discharged,
leaving the plaintiff to his.remedy by action. against the She-
riffs to recover the sum now in their hands. This case was
distinguishable from the common cases in which cause was
shown by the Sheriffs. It was laid down in all the hooks,
that there are four remedies in the cases •of Sheriffs where
money has been levied under an execution issued in an action,
but these remedies were in substance two—either by apply-
ing for the summary interference of the Court or by action.
The facts in the
.present case, as they appeared on the affi-
davit, were that an action had been brought against Messrs.
Hansard, who had proceeded to judgment--that the money
had been paid under an execution issued upon that judgment,
and that a demand had been made for the money by the
plaintiff, but that it had not been paid. On behalf of the
Sheriffs he would suggest two grounds why the rule should
not be made absolute. First, that the Sheriffs were in a
situation of great diffieulty—thai it was impossible for any
person tilling the ministerial office which they held, to know
precisely what they ought to do, or how to escape the perils
by which they were encompassed, and he trusted their lord-
ships would, under such circumstances, leave the case to be
determined by the highest tribunal in the country, the House
of Lords. The first ground on which he claimed their lord-
ship'S indulgence was,"that an order had been made by the
House of Comnions.
Mr. Platt—l have received no such affidavit. There is
not a word abbut the House of Commons on the affidavit
which I have received.

Mr. Richards.-L-The affidavit annexed the votes of the
House of Con-Rams.

Mr. Platt7-MY learned friend is mistaken. I see no such
affidavit. I had a -number of papers put into my hand yes-
terday, but the Times newspaper might as well have 'been
given to me.
Mr. Richards.—l have also another affidavit which will be
sworn in a moment, to the very proceedings which occurred
last night.
Mr. Platt.—l beg pardon. My friend, Mr. Kennedy, says,
he saw the affidavit yesterday.
Mr. Richards said he had been yesterday furnished with
an affidavit, stating that the House of Commons, by their
votes, had ordered the Sheriffs to pay over the amount levied
in this action, to Messrs. Hansard, the defendants. Now
the matter went further because last night the Sheriffs were
committed, no dimbt for not paying the money, but the war.
rant of commitment did not state the cause so as to allow a
court of law to judge of its legality, but merely that they
were committed for contempt. He would not go into the ge-
neral question, but would Submit the case of the Sheriffs to
their lordships as one to which they would grant such indul-
gence and protection as the power of the court could afford,
because, unless the rule should be discharged, it must be fol-
lowed up by an attachment for not paying the money accord-
ing to the order of the court, the consequence of which would
be that when these gentlemen were released from the custody
of the Serjeant-at-arnis, they must be committed to the cus-
tody of the officer of the court, unless they should pay over
the money according to their lordships rule as well as accord-
ing to the order of the House of Commons. • He had no doubt
their lordships would interfere, if they had the power, to
prevent the question being tried in the persons of the Sheriffs.
If the rule should be made absolute the question could not
be carried any further, but the money would have to be paid
twice over, and he trusted that as these gentlemen had de-
clared bona fide, if their lordships would give them the op-
portunity of ascertaining whether they were by law com-
pelled to pay the money twice over. He did not think he
should be acting correctly by going further into the case, but
would put it to their lordships on the ground of granting
such indulgence as they could to the sheriffs. He (Mr. R.)
had stated that there were two grounds for the present ap-
plication.d h
ansecond
that
:vas,at his assignees
that
had
Stockdale
g in notice
ehad
otbeenieeto
an
ica tinsolventien. debtor,
the Sheriff, that they claimed the money as belonging to
them under the process of the Insolvent Debtor's Court.
Lord DenmaM—The assignees under the insolvency have
not, I believe, made any application to this Court.
Mr. Platt.—None, my lord.
Mr. Richards was not aware of that. The proceedings
under the authority of that Court entitled the 'assignees of
an insolvent, who might haie acquired property after his dis-
charge to apply to the Court. The question now was, whe-,
ther they were to pay' the money twice over, -or, -as.
learned friend (Mr. Watson) suggested, three times, namelr,:
to the plaintiff, to the assignees, and under the'order of the
House of Commons. He did not mean to say who might be
right or wrong, but let the ride be-discharged, and then the
assignees would have the opportunity of trying the tniestioia.•
Mr. Justice Coleridge.—What • does your affidavit state
exactly about the assignees of the insolvent ?
Mr. Richards then read the affidavit of Jacob Walker.,
setting? forth a copy of the order of the Court that the sheriffs
should hold the money until-the Court should make a further
order, and that the insolvent debtor and the sheriffs should
show cause to the Court why the money should not be paid
over to the provisional assignees of the estate and 'effects of
the insolvent. •
Mr, Watson followed 'on the same side: This waia case
in which the summary interposition of the Court ought not
to be allowed. The object of that interposition was to britcg
the Sheriffs into contempt ; fOr: if the rule should be made
absolute, and they did
.not pay . the money, their lordship
would grant an •attachnient.. The proper remedy against the
Sheriff in such a' case as the present was by action, The
mode of ruling the Sheriff to pay over money was, he he.';
lieved, of modern practice, and was only resorted to where,
there was no just ground for not paying over the Money-,,
where no question of law or fact could arise. If theft lord-.
ships should determine the rule against the Sheriffs- that
would be final and conclusive ; but if they discharged it, Mr.'
Stockdale might then bring his action, aml.theSheriffs would
have the-opportunity of defending then'iSel-14 If the*
lordships should then give judgment against the Sheriffs, on
delimiter, the question ought then to be -taken to a higher
tribunal, and this he submitted was a which the
Sheriffs were entitled. `f“7 0 1
• '
Mr. Kennedy followed on the sanie‘ side: e rested his
case on'the two-following grounds :—ln the first plawtelt-4
ing the facts- frogs Mr. Platt's affidavit, he contendedArit
the application was totally without precedent,
,as Weltas titE='
necessary ; and in the second place he ciontended that the
order of the Insolvent Debtor's Court,. served on the She-
riffs, was a'sufficient defence' for them. The learned counsel
contended at considerable length that the rule ought not,
under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to he made ab-
solute, and cited a number of cases to show the practice of
the Court in ordering Sheriffs to pay over money.
Mr. PLATT' said it now became his duty to address the
Court in support of the rule, and he had little doubt hut that
their lordships would feel themselves bound to make it abso-
lute. The facts of the case were very short. On the 12th
of November the Sheriff executed a writ of inquiry on an ac-
tion brought by Mr. Stockdale against Messrs. Hansard.
On that occasion the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff
—damages £6OO. The action, their lordships would bear
in mind, was undefended. On the 23d a writ of fr. fa. was
issued out of that court. On the 25th of November a rule
was served on the Sheriffs to proceed to a sale of the de-
fendants' goods. The' Sheriffs obeyed that writ and made a
return, stating the facts he had mentioned. They also stated
that they had in their hands the money arising from such
sale, and were ready. if commanded, to pay it over to Mr.
Stockdale. An application was accordingly. made for that
purpose, and the Court granted a rule to show couse, which
lie trusted their lordships would make absolute. On the first
day of the present term the rule was obtained. And what
was the cause now shown against it? Why, principally, that
on the 15th instant the Sheriffs were served with a rule, or a
supposed rule, from the Insolvent Debtors' Court, not to
pay over the money io Mr. Stockdale, but to that gentleman's
assignees. The affidavits did not state how the rule was ob-
tained, and, therefore, for aught the Court knew, it might
have been by collision, to defeat the verdict-of a jury. The
Sheriffs, it was said, were ordered by the Insolvent Court to
retain the money in their hands ; that was a fact,
.however,
of which the affidavits took no notice. There was no
proof that this notice was a legal or authentic document,
and therefore the Court could take no notice of it. Their
lordships could have no difficulty on that point. Another
ground of argument against the rule, however, was the pro-
ceedings which had taken place in the House of Commons.
Under the peculiar nature of those proceedings, the sheriffs
must be committed either by the house or by that court. He
-(Mr. P.) saw a smile at this observation, but he was sure the
court would not think it a jocose subject : it was not a trif-
ling question ; it was not a matter of mirth. One branch of
the legislature had ordered into custody two honourable men,
holding high official situations, and he would •ask for what ?
Why, merely because they were determined to obey their
oaths, and to support the law of the land. (There was con-
siderable approbation manifested at the observation of the
learned counsel.) Mr. Platt then proceeded to read atlength
the petition of Messrs. Hansard to the House of Commons,
which has been published at length in the debates, and pro-
ceeded to say that the humble advocate who was then ad-
dressing the court, was guilty of contempt of the resolutions
of the Commons' House : but little did that branch of the
legislature know of the temper of the bar, if they supposed
counsel would shrink from the duty they owed to their clients.
Sending the sheriffs to prison for honestly and nobly discharg-
ing their duty,, he would say, disgraced the authority which
committed them. He denied the power of the House of
Commons legally to carry the warrant into effect. If the she-
riffs, in the honoftrable and legal discharge of their public
duty, denied the validity of the Speaker's warrant, and which
they might have done, and the messenger persisted in exe-
cuting it; suppose in such a case the officer of the house
had been killed, the courts of law must have pronounced it
justifiable homicide: A writ had been regularly sued out, in
which execution had legally followed. That was the short
fact of the case. His learned friends said, the Court ought
not to proceed in a summary manner. Surely the Queen's
writs were to be obeyed, and the Court was bound-to see that
full obedience was paid to them. It was idle to talk about.
bringing an action against the Sheriffs ; the question had
been treated all along as a contempt of parliament, and there-
fore suppose an action was brought against these officers, and
a verdict was obtained, the next step would be of a writ of.
execution issued for the House of Commons to call the Co-
roner, whose duty it would be to execute it, to the bar ; and
if such a course were adopted interminable actions and inter-
minable motions for contempt would ensue. He trusted
nothing which had been said would induce their lordships to
overrate the solemn decision they had given. Why was not
the case carried to the House of Lords as a higher tribunal ?
If the action had been defended, that might have been done ;
but the Attorney-General knew full well that such a course
would not be advisable, as their lordships must have affirmed
the decision of that Court. A great deal had been said about
contempt ; was not disobedience of the Queen's writs the
greatest contempt a public officer could be guilty of? Was
it not a contempt of the highest civil court in the kingdom.
The whole proceedings of the House of Commons was a
contempt of that Court. (Applause.) The house had no
more right or authority to interfere or control the proceed-
ings of that Court than a parish vestry had. (Applause.) A
parish vestry was useful in its plice, and so was the House
of Commons—(laughter);—but they had no business to attack
the liberties and character of her Majesty's subjects. The
question for their lordships' consideration, however, lay in
a narrow compass. The action was undefended, a verdict
was given for the plaintiff, a writ of fieri facial issued,
execution took place. The sheriffs had the money in their
hands, and there was, therefore, no excuse why they should
not pay it over to Mr. Stockdale.
Mr. Carrington followed on the same side.
Their lordships consulted for a short time, when
Lord Denman requested a copy of the warrant of the
Speaker of the House of Commons for the commitment of
the sheriffs to be handed up, which was accordingly done,
when another consultation of the judges took place, after
which
Lord Denman said that this was a rule calling on the
sheriff to show cause why money paid into their hands by
Messrs. Hansard, at the suit of Mr. Stockdale, should not
gginoalbyacdteiofanullas
Afolw•
and judgment ha
was that the levy had been madeon
the part of the shell
be given to the
Pdiaibneleinff.alliscnivieedotroi
rit of
for sale. Some time had been
venditioni exponas had been issued, to which the answer
and the goods were ready
allowed to the sheriff for his convenience. The
plaintiff,
it appears, received the money in the due course of law. The
question then was, what was there to prevent him from ob
taining the fruits of that verdict. -
There was nothing which
House of Commons disapproved of the law which had been
he (Lord Denman) could perceive. It was said that the

laid down in that curt. If so, for various reasons, he deeply
lamented it, but in whatever manner that disapprobation may
be announced, he could see no cause to preVent the, Court of
Queen's Bench film doing full justice to every one of his •
fellow subjects who may require it at their hands. (Here a
murmur of approlition ran through the court.) With re-
gard to the first resolution of the house, he saw no reason
why the fact of the Sheriff having the misfortune to incur
the displeasure of :he House of Commons should deprive the
plaintiff of his ins: right. No cause was, shown why such
should be the dose, and, in fact, the Court had not siitficient
information before it to interfere. Another resolution was
that the Sheriff should refund the money to MessrS. Han-
sard. -That was no ground of interference on the part of the
Court. The suprosition was made of the Sheriffs being,,
deprived of the money hp Superior force. He did not think:
the plea of vis maior applied. It was the '4llO of thexShet
riffs to pay the money when they had received` ft. The,next..
resolution of the House of Commons was that the Sheriff -
Should be committed for a contenlpt 'of that
not at liberty to mike any conunent on that, as:cionteuipt of
that house may be committed without at all 'violating the
rules and orders of that Court by which the plaintiff had no
right to lose his money. If any discretion in the matter
rested with him, he should certainly have before Made the
rule absolute. There was as he said here no discretion on
the part of that Court, as the plaintiff here called on the
Sheriff to do that which was the ordinary practice of the
Court. Mr. Kennedy had said that the case was unprece-
dented, but the reason was that unless something extraordi-
nary occurred the practice would never be departed from.
The practice grew out of the relations between the Sheriff
and that Court, whose officer he was. He would not advert
to the various delicate topics which had been introduced, or
to consequences which might ensue, but, confining himself
simply to the facts of the case, they were such as left no
doubt on his mind that the rule should be made absolute.
The other fudges concurred with the Lord Chief Justice.

Rule absolute.
The court was crowded to suffocation during the whole
proceeding, and the decision of their lordships appeared to
zive-the greatest satisfaction to the bar.