Year: 1860

In the matter Of J. H. MoyTson-The Chancellor in


delivering his opinion, said


1t appears that the petitioner is held il. custody


by virtue of attachment issued by this Coure be-


cause he failed to obey the final decree of said Court


sitting Court of Chancery, in the case of K


haapakea ct al against him, whereby he ordered


10 pay the plaintiffs the of twenty-five hundred


and sixty dollars


This decree WIS made upon r complaint of the


plaintiffs, in which they allege fraud on the part of


the defendant, the present petitioner in the purchase


OF tract of land and prays that the defendant
be compelled TO pay TO them the money which ne


has received from sales which he has made prior
filing of said complaint; and 70 recopvev TO them


that portion of the land which he has conveyed
to innocent purchasers, without notice.


An injunction was made at the time process
issued on said complaint, forbidding him from max


ing sales, or committing trespsss thereon The fore
going amount is what the defendant has received


from the sales of the land less the amount of the
purchase money paid by him.


And now the petitioner prays TO be discharged


from said arrest, because he says that he is unable


to comply with the decree He alleges that he has
disposed of the money which he received from the


sale OF the land by paying debt to his father, who


resides in Pennsylvania, the amount of ten hum
dred and sixty dollars; that he also remitted him


four hundred and fifty dollars for the benefit of his


sister, and that at another tme and subsequent to
the service of the bill in equity, under which the


final decree of this Court issued - he remitted
To his father the further OF fifteen hundred
dollars a contribution towards the support OF HIM
self and daughter, and some soace in his decn-
ing years. He further represents that he is inform


ed and verify believes that his father Is unable to
return any portion of the amount remitted him.
1t is contended by the counsel for the complain


ants in the bill and in whose favor the decree


made that the Court has not power TO vacate the at


tachment; that having been once issued 1t beyond
reconsideration and recall. The Court does not


gard this a sound legal view of this process The
decree was made by the Court and notice given to
the defendant To comply with it. which he filled TO


do the cOmplanants by of their counsel present


petition, III which he alleges oath that he ad


yised and believes that the said petitioner does not


intend TO comply with that portion of the decree
which requires him to pay money which he has re-


ceived from the sales OF the land namely, the sum
of twenty-five hundred and sixty doilsrS, and fur


ther he is advised and believes that the defendant
has made such disposition of the money in the
opinion of said petitioner will prevent the plaintiffs
! from obtaining said money. WhereupOn a process
OF attachment was issued ordering the Marshal 10
keep him in custody till he had complied with the


final decree made i'll sad cause he discharged by
order Of Court


This process does not preclude the party from
coming into Court and procuring his discharge, If
the allegations upon which the party arrested
proved to be untrue. And the question becomes
very simple one, both in law and morals: has the
petitioner made a wrongful disposition OF said mon
ey which will preclude the plaintiffs from obtaining
the amount decreed, any portion of it He alleges


that he has given fifteen hundred dollars his father


after the service of the complanant's bill upon him,


and he is informed and verify believ that his ia
ther is quite unable 10 return any portion Of the
amount so remitted him. and that he, the petit


toner is absolutely destitute of means wherewth to
pay any part of the amount decreed against him.
The Court cannot relieve party who seeks TO


avoid the payment of his debts liabilities either


by transferring his property TO third party, or of
removing the same out OF the jurisdiction of the
Court. The principles of law, of equity, and the


provisions of Civil Code give this protection to


creditors and the question arises, what IS the evil


dence that he intended to evade the payment of the


amount awarded by the decree 1t Is admitted that


the bill was hled that the claim asserted before


he his father the last amount of fifteen hun
dred dollars lie then that at least


tingent liability upon him, and it was his duty


have kept his property in the KINGDOM or at least
under his contrnl, to enable him to meet whatever
judgement might be awarded against him. Had this


money been used in the ordinary course OF business
it would have presented a different case. But 1t


would be perfect derection Of duty IN Court, to
justify in sending their money or other proper
w out of its jurisdiction and thereby eydng their


liabilities within it. 1t seems somewhat singular TO
me that counsel can seriously address Court, and
ask for discharge the ground that the party has
given his money TO his kindred in distant country
The laws of this kingdom must be enforced and the
rights of its citizens secured, the administration
of Justice is mockery Had the petitioner diSpos-
ed of this money, before he was aware that claims
were instituted would be instituted against hIIn,
or had he lost the money in the regular course of
business by misfortune, should tender security
for this amount, it would present very different
case But when the claim was asserted and the bill


filed in Court, how he justify himself for send
ing bevond the jurisdiction of the Court all the means
he had respond to the decree which might be CIV
en- against him-and especially the very money which
this suit instituted reclaim. If security Tor
this amount was tenderedit would present very
different case--but as it stands on the present
hearing the statements of the petitioner himself
and his counsel it is claim for release from arrest
because he is unable TO pay, when that inability is
created by the remittance of money as present TO
his kindred in a distant country Can donations be
made and liabilities repudiated The law TEACHES
different doctrine.


1t is further contended BY the counsel for the Pc
titioner that the injunction issued forbidding
him to make sales of the land, or committing tres
pass thereon-but as he not njOined from send
ing tire money which he had received from the sales
of the land, out of the jurisdiction Of the Court he
should be excused for doing it. This would be a
new application of the wit of injunction--of its
force when referring TO money in hand, there would
be much question 1t has decided force when its
obiect is to prevent the sale OF land, or trespass
thereon.


The bill gave full notice of the claim. and 1t seems
somewhat singular to require writ OF junction TO
notify persons against whom suin are pending not
to send their money Of the jurisdiction OF the
Court or they will be excused from so doing. Ihe
books furnish no such precedent. and it will hardly
commend itself To the common sense, or common
honesty of mankind. Petition dismissed.


Mr.. Montgomery for Petitioner, ar. Bates for Re-
spondent,


SINGULAR RETRIBuTIoN.- the vicinity of Rich
mond and Emerald streets lives an Irishman named
Patrick NcDermot He is habitually intemperate