The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-04-08 00:00:00

CUFF V. ROSCOE

The plaintiff in this case was Mr. Thomas Cuff, pork but-
cher, Byrom-street, and the defendant Mr. William Stanley
Roscoe, who was sergeant-at-mace for the borough.
Mr. KNOWLES (with whom was Mr. Crompton) stated
the plaintiff's case to the jury. He said the defendant in
this case was but the nominal defendant. He was the
serjeant-at-mace for the borough, who stood in the po-
sition of the sheriff of the county ; yet the real defendant
would be the officer who acted in the execution of the
writ. He believed that the plaintiff recovered a debt in
the Borough Court of this town, against a person of the
name of John Tompkins, and on the 28th day of April
last year sued out a judgment and issued an execution against
him. The execution was £305 9s. Sd., including expences,
and the writ was indorsed to give authority to levy certain
charges, which were usual on such occasions. The writ was
delivered to the defendant, who had the execution of all writs
issuing out of the Borough Court, and the defendant made
out the writ to an officer of the name of Kirby. Tomkins
was a printer in this town, and at the time when the officer
Kirby seized his goods, he (the learned council) was told
there were on the premises goods to the value of £5OO or
£6OO, and the execution being only for £305, there was au
opportunity to levy for the whole of the debt. It sometimes
happened that parties where goods were seized, contrived to
cheat the officer who had seized, and he was afraid
that something of that sort had been done in this case.
He believed that some of Tomkin's friends, and amongst
them was Mr. Ashton, contrived to elude the vigilance
of the officer, and took from the premises a considerable part
of the property, and it was for the value of this that the pre-
sent action was brought. When the goods of a party against
whom an execution was issued were once in possession of the
officer, he was bound to keep them ; if he did not keep a
sufficient watch over them he was answerable to the party
who issued out the writ. In this case he believed that be-
tw,een 80 and 100 reams of paper were on the premises at the
time the officer took possession, but that when the sale took
place not one ream of paper was left. The greater part of
the type also was removed. The property seized only rea-
lised £176, exclusive:of charges, and it was for the difference
between that sum and £305 that the action was brought.
The issuing of the writ having been proved, although
Kirby, the officer, did not answer, and was called on his
subpoena.
William Watson, a journeyman printer, late in the employ
of Tomkins, deposed to going round the office with the ap-
praiser, and seeing seven reams of paper. A few days
before the sale, an officer of the name of Hall being in pos-
session, Mr. Ashton, with Mr. Bates and Mr. Donaldson,
came into the office and sent for a• great quantity of drink.
Hall partook of it, and became stupidly drunk. Whilst he
was in that state, Mr. Ashton and parties whom he employed
removed the reams of paper, and several founts of type ;
the type was so removed as to render what was left useless
when the sale came on. Ashton purchased, for £6 4s, the
part of a fount which was left, and which fount originally
cost £4O. Bundles of stamps and pressing-boards were also
removed. None of the paper was sold at the sale which
he had seen counted at the sale.
Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS.—Ashton was formerly
a partner with Mr. H. Tomkins, and was also a painter in
Newington:,

James M'Avoy, who was a turn-over apprentice in the
office, stated that, by Mr. Ashton's directions, he had taken
some of the materials to his office, Lawton-street.

Mr. DUNDAS then addressed the jury on the part of the
defendant, who, he said, was one of the most respectable
men in Liverpool; and he should be able to convince them
that the action was brought upon grounds which could not be
supported, either by law or justice. The sheriff, so tar from
having done anything irregular, either by himself or his offi-
cers, had acted perectly legally, and any loss which had
arisen was imputable to those persons who had conspired
with Ashton to defraud the executors, by taking away the
property. The plaintiff, Mr. Cuff. was himself the cause of
all the mischief ; to him the conduct of Ashton and the others
who had been concerned in conveying away the goods was
attributable. He had intercepted the office of the sheriff in
bringing the execution, and therefore he was himself answer-
able for any loss that had arisen. If he had left well alone,
all would be right enough, but he went and gave instruction
that Ashton should be obeyed, and it was in consequence of
those orders that the property had been taken. He should
prove that Cuff was cognizant of the goods being taken
away ; that be had said he knew of it ; that he knew where
they were taken, and what they were taken for. If that were
so, what right had Cuff to claim damages from Roscoe ? The
learned counsel then detailed at length the evidence he should
produce, and proceeded to call his witnesses.
The two bailiffs, Carter and Richard Hall, were then
called, and they proved the entry into the premises to make
the execution. The latter was the man who had been made
drunk whilst the goods were being taken away. The morn-
ing after that Cuff came in and asked witness whether they
could follow the property which had been taken, if they
knew where it was. Witness told him they could.—ln
cross-examination the witness persiste in saying that e was
h
not drunk when the things were takend , and that het h no
knowledge of the transaction.
Joseph Kinsley, book-keeper to Tompkins, said that Cuff
came in when the officers were in, and asked what the office
was worth. Witness told him £3OO a year, and he then said