The Statesman.
London, England, 1809-06-21 00:00:00

which tough t.not, when Imposed, to exceet 3001.
that it was nut until lately decided that the Defeo.
datftstieere liable. to relsair this bridge; that in no
part of this kingdom were bridge's or rood, kept
in better repair than they are in the North aiding
of the-county of York, /cc, fur which reasutis he
'Omitted that this film should be respited until the
neat Term.
Mr. Lasts sal, that his clients had no objection
whatever to this respite.
Flue respited to the next Term accordingly.
MITCIILL P. SLIM.
The MT° V-G MA/. chewed cause against
a rule obtained by Mr. Gartow, milling on the
Plaintiff to show cauv why the judgment en-
tered up, and all the proceedings subsequently
Arad upon this occasiley, should not be set aside
with costs, fur irregularity; and why the goods
and chattels taken unties the levy of such exe-
cution should not be restored to the Defendant.
This rule had beets obtained on the ground that
the proceedings were irregular, and -she irregu-
larity complained of was, th(tt this beiug a judg-
ment entered up by warrant of attorney, granted
upon agreement of a certain defeveance,
.sigui-
f)ing that the judgment should pot be entered
nit Irma a certain day, and that agreement was
not indorsed un the warrant of attorney, a for.
mality which was_ required by a rule of Court
of the 42d of the King, the judgment was irre-
gular on accoost of that omission. lie admit-
ted that the rule reqtsired this, and he admitted
the fact to be that this defeatennce was not its-
dorsal on thit warrant of attorney, and the
Plaintit's, attorney cdmitted it in his affidavit
most candidly; but *kit he had to submit to
the Court of as this* tha4 the rule of Court was ,
two-fold ; the brit part was, that the warrant of
attorney should be filed with the Clerk of the
'Judgments at the time of signing the judgment,
without which the judgment would not be regular,
and therefore this affected the client, as well as at.
torney—it indeed affecitxl judgment itself: but
this form was complied with in this ease, and
therefore there was nu objection to the judgment
on this account. But the next point was, that
the defeasessace was not indorsed spots the tsar.
rant qf attorney. Lippe that puiut he submitted
toltps Court, that thirir Lordships wild trot ap-
ply this to the client, hut, merely to the attorney,
who had indeed omitted to observe a part of the
rule of Court; .but as no injustice ass done to
the Defendant, tie money levied which was nut ee..
tually due, nor before it was due, the judgment
should nut be set aside i. but—
The Court held, unanimously, that arthe rule
of Court of the 42d of the King, on the subject
of judgmeut by warrant of attorney, is a very
wholesome and iipportant rule, it must bo observed
strictly, and the client must be subject to the pe-
rils of the misconduct of his attorney. The
Coml. howeer, adverting to the egoitable con.
btru ctio n of the case, under all its circumstances,
allowed the Plaiutift's attorney to have Access to
this warrant, fur the purpose of indorsing on it,
mune pro tone, the drfeaseeisce which ought to
have been there written before the judgment was
entered up, in order turnable the Plaintiff tuba ve a
regular judgment; and, with this qualiticatiun,
the rule was wade absolute: