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

former verdict could be altered, though tl

be submitted to another jury

At the same time, on the par

of his client be must lake the liberty of disavowing

jlialit

knowledge of, or participation in, the alleged irreg
which must have occurred through the oversight of those t

whom the conduct of their business was intrusted.
The Attorney• General having consented, on the part of a

Crown, to this atrang,etnent,
Lord Abinger intimated that he thought the course
adopted by the defendant was a very proper one, and he
could not withhold the expression of his opinion that nothing
had 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 WAL3tSI,II:Y.
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 Attornev-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 Gth of October he re-
ceived another communication from the solicitor of Excise,
informing him that lie 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 hen 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 be considered as the law, that the lien of a
subject could not prevail against the claim of the Crown
under an extent.