The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-06-23 00:00:00

00- isTeL Tatar NT:t,,f,

COURT OF pXCHERI.T.FII,, Motiptar, 414Niti: 19.

(Sittings at Nisi Prins, before Lord ABINGER and a
Special Jury.)
riCISE CAUSES.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. MARTINDALE-
In this case, which was an information for penalties arising
out of the transaction which formed the ground of certain
proceedings against the defendant on Saturday last.
Mr. Kelly, for the defendant, said that after the result of
the former investigation he would not on the part of the de-
fendant any further contest the matter with the Attorney-
General. His intention now, therefore, was to submit to a

verdict for single penalties, as it was not likely that the
former verdict could be altered, though the evidence might
be submitted to another jury. At the same time, on the part
of his client he must take the liberty of disavowing all
knowledge of, or participation in, the alleged irregularity,
which must have occurred through the oversight of those to
whom the conduct of their business was intrusted.
The Attorney-General having consented, on the part of the
Crown, to this arrangement,
Lord Abinger intimated that be thought the course
adopted by the defendant was a very proper one, and he
could not withhold the expression of his opinion that nothing
bad transpired on Saturday which at all connected the de-
fendants personally with the transaction.
The jury accordingly, by the direction of the learned
Judge, found a verdict for the Crown to the amount agreed
upon between the learned counsel.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. Slit JOSHUA WALMSLEY.
In this case the Excise department claimed to recover by
information, from Sir Joshua Walmsley a sum of between
£2,000 and .£3,000, as money received by Sir Joshua for the
use of the Crown.
The Attorney-General (with Mr. Wilde) appeared for the
Crown, and Mr. Kelly (with Mr. Crompton) for the de-
fendant.
It appeared that in the month of August, 1842, the de-
fendant was in possession of a large quantity of malt, the
property of Mr. Harrison Armitage, but on which the de-
fendant had a lien to the extent of £2,096. Mr. Armitage
was indebted to the Crown for duties, and an extent issued
against his property, under which the malt in question was
seized. The defendant then asserted his claim to hold the
malt until the lien was satisfied, and the solicitor for the Ex-_
cise, though expressing some doubt as to the validity of the
claim, directed the defendant to sell the malt for the best
price he could get, and pay over the balance, deducting the
amount of his lien, to the Excise officers. The defendant
accordingly sold the malt, and advised the solicitor of Ex-
cise that he had done so ; but on the 6th of October he re-
ceived another communication from the solicitor of Excise,
informing him that he must suspend all further proceedings
in the matter, as the law officers of the Crown were of opi-
nion that his lien was not an admissible claim against the
Crown, although it might be unquestionable as against any
private individual. Two days after the receipt of this com-
munication the defendant paid over to the Excise authori-
ties a balance of £6OO, the produce of the malt remaining in
his hands, after deducting the amount of his lien and the ex-
penses of the sale, and the present information was there-
upon instituted.
Mr. Kelly, on behalf of the defendant, did not propose to
contest any of the facts stated on behalf of the Crown, but
submitted, that as the defendant had sold the malt, and paid
himself under the directions of the solicitor of Excise, who
had a full knowledge of the facts, the Crown was not en-
titled to sue as for money had and received. He admitted
that it might now he considered as the law, that the lien of a
subject could not prevail against the claim of the Crown
under an extent.
Lord Abinger did not think it des:rahle he should give any
opinion on the legal question raised by the defendant's coun-
sel at present, further than to say that he thought it a fair
point to raise for the opinion of the court. It was not to
be supposed that even if he were now prepared to decide it,
the unsuccessful party would be satisfied with his decision :
he. therefore, suggested that a verdict should be taken for the
Crown for the amount claimed, with liberty for the defen-
dant's counsel to move to enter a verdict for the defendant
if the court should be of opinion that upon the facts, as stated
the Crown was not entitled to recover.
The Lord Chief Baron's suggestion having been acceded
to by the Attorney-General and the defendant's counsel, a
verdict was taken for the crown for £2,607, subject to the
opinion of the cuurt.