Hamlin against Crossley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 995
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
[677] hamlin against crosslev. 1838. By stat. 7 G. 4, c. 57, sa. 10, 50, the Insolvent Debtors' Court has power to discharge a party from custody under a capias utlagatum upon a judgment for damages and costs. The plaintiff obtained a verdict against the defendant, for 201. damages, in an action of trespass for criminal conversation. In Easter term, 1835, final judgment was signed for 2881. damages and costs. The defendant waa proclaimed an outlaw in this cause, on 7th October, 1835 ; and the outlawry waa entered of record in Michaelmas term 1835. On 3d November, 1837, a writ of capias utlagatum issued in the cause, directed to the Sheriff of Hertfordshire, under which the defendant was captured and committed to the prison of that county. The defendant petitioned the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors on 10th November, 1837, and came up for hearing on 13th December in that year, before the Chief Commissioner, at Hertford. The plaintiff opposed the discharge, and took a preliminary objection, that the defendant, being an outlaw, had no locus statidi in Court. The Chief Commissioner overruled the objection: the cause was heard, under protest on the part of the plaintiff; and the defendant was ordered to be discharged after he should have remained in custody four months from the filing of his petition. An order to the above effect was made out, and handed to the gaoler. Crowder, in Hilary term last, obtained a rule calling on the defendant and the Commissioners of the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors to shew cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue, to prohibit [678] the commissioners from further proceeding on the said order. In the same term (a), Sir W. W. Follett shewed cause. The first question is, whether this Court has power in the present case to grant a prohibition. The question was raised in Exjtarte Battine (4 B. & Ad. 690), but not decided, this Court considering the proceeding of the Insolvent Court to have been correct. What is to be prohibited here? The order complained of is made ; and the Insolvent Court has no more steps to take. But the objection to the proceeding of the Insolvent Court is untenable. That Court has jurisdiction, under stat. 7 G. 4, c. 57, s. 10, in the case of any person in actual custody within the walls of any prison in England, " Upon any process whatsoever, for or by reason of any debt, damage, costs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Basterfield against Sprye
...of the detention awarded by the Insolvent Debtors' Court: but it does not appear what became of the rule. In ffamlin v. Crossley (8 A. & E. 677) this Court refused to interfere by prohibiting the Insolvent Debtors' Court from discharging an insolvent who was in custody under a capias utlaga......
-
Mander, Gent. One, &
...from the delivery of the bill. [Wightman J. "Except under special circumstances." Coleridge J. These would be so.] In Hamlin v. Crossley (8 A. & E. 677), it was held that an outlaw petitioning under the then Insolvent Debtors' Act, 7 G-. 4, c. 57, might claim to be discharged from custody u......