New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-03-28

whose possession the goods deposited or who IN
nobted to your debtor and attach such g9os or credits IN
pear before prescribed IN Title o. 10 Is 10 be noed
that i'm this the words the goods debts or Ss
Of money belonging TO n certain X and being In me
hands of the aforesaid to he included These words
are omitted In the case or warrant whch was peoto
re was conended on this motion by the counsel for tho
garnishees that Title % OF CIerke. ana the decision III
Manro agt Almeda 60 further than 10 hold that the
process Of attachment s proper IN clyil cause ~ Per
sondin in Admiralty, where me aslendant IA;
where merely absent and cannot DC properly d 10
Mr. UaI translate az follows OF the warrant TO be
mpetraed in where the debtor aDsconus or - aO'
sent from the realm me true iI e ~ tho de-
PENDANT debtor shall have absented himself 40 thst IN
action cannot be instituted against MN ana r o.
in the caption are absent aren't" These arc trans
realm The proper translation H. Shall have absented
himself" The words do not properly involve te uea OF
absconng III the sense OF having been Withn ,he Jn
ammo So in Title 80. the Latin words are non, posf
eonreri ri cum poss's Gresmr ,heSe "o s 70 he
arrested" II would be more literally accurate 10 say.
cannot be reached Tor found so that y0u may arrest
him. In either case the language OF Title Sis such a
that the proceeding provided for - 10 p use
whenever the defendant cannot be reached OF i1ur
abscondng. No sound difference IN prnclple can "
maintained between the proprety OF rsor 1Sor 70 be
defendant is from the Jurisdiction by abscondhg
and in other cases OF absence. 1,. .,
Manro agt Almeida decided says, IN Clarke agt
NcwJersey Steam Navigation Company q story, o5i.'
decided in Isl that ever since the Of Manro agt
Almeda IL has not been doubted That the process OF
attachment well lies in an Admiralty SUIT agsin s .ns
property of private persons, whose property Is Iouu
within the district although their persons may no. V
found therein, well asfo enforce Their spPearance 70
the suit as to apply 1t in satisfaction OF the decree rem
dered in the SUIT and that the very point derde1 IN
case was that the jurisdiction Of Courts OF AdmraIy
might be executed only against persons fonnd witnn
the district but also by attachment against ther properly
found within the district although the persons are hoe
in IN
yoI hook A. chapter g. section page 6Sj edition OF
1880 saws that in Manro agt Almeida. the question was
considered as TO the power OF the Court 10 grant an
attachment goods when the defendant was ont OF the
Jurisdiction. aud the power was asserted Oy the court
have no doubt Of the jurisdiction OF this Court IN his
case acquired the manner referred to- II regarded
IL as doubtful, should not he willing IN view on tne
weight OF authority in favor Of IT, to set aside me ath
ments on motion. so grave question as to mat OF W
rsdction ought not be disposed OF on mot0n, Dut
ought be presented by pleading or at the trial. ana IN
formal When Is so presented the DehcHt OF
review I'm regard TO II certainly be secured, whlIe
the right OF the belant such review might be doubt
full II the attachments To be discharged on motion
The motion Is denied