The King against The Sheriff of Middlesex, in a Cause of Williams against Pennell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1817 |
| Date | 25 November 1817 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 70
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
E. Lawes shewed cause against a rule which had been obtained by Holt, for setting aside an attachment against the sheriff for not bringing in the body, with costs for irregularity; on an affidavit stating that the sheriff, having been ruled to return the bill of Middlesex, had returned "that he did on the 18th day of October, 1816, arrest and take the body of the defendant, and detain him, until afterwards he rescued himself out of the sheriff's custody; and that afterwards, and before the return of the precept, he was not found in the said sheriff's bailiwick." He contended, that it was (ft)1 2 Blac. Eep. 1190. (a)2 Exparte Winter. Barnewall, on a subsequent day in this term, made a similar application, in a case where a solicitor had given directions to his clerk to take out his certificate, and furnished him with money for that purpose: the latter had applied the money to his own use; and the applicant, unconscious that his certificate had not been taken out, continued to practise after his former certificate had expired ; and upon the authority of the preceding case, the Court granted the application. (5) We were favoured with this report by the gentlemen who argued the case. 1 B. & AID. 191. THE KING V. WOOLER 71 not sufficient to return,'that the party rescued himself, unless it was said to be by people of the county, as in Waldo v. Lambert (c); but that the [191] return ought regularly to name the rescuers, as in May v. Proby(a), so that the plaintiff might have his remedy against the rescuers; although he admitted that the sheriff was not bound to take the posse comitatus with him to execute mesne process. Crompton v. Ward (b). He admitted also that it might be sufficient if it was shewn by the return how, and with what force the defendant rescued himself, as by presenting a pistol at the sheriff's officer, or by being more than his equal in bodily strength, or the like; but contended that where nothing of that sort was stated, the sheriff was liable to an attachment, for which he cited the case in W. Jon. 201, where the sheriff returned that two women rescued the defendant in his way to prison, after being arrested on a latitat, and the Court ordered that an attachment should go against the bailiff, to examine if the escape was by fraud or not. Holt, who supported the rule, said, that Gibbes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE QUEEN v THOMAS FANNING. [Crown Cases Reserved.]
...S. C., Cox. C. C. 33. Regina v. OrgillENR 9 C. & P. 80. Duchess of Kingston's caseST1 20 St. Tr. 514. Rex v. Inhabitants of TibshelfENR 1 B. & A. 190. Inhabitants of WroxtonENR 4 B. & A. 640. Regina v. Chadwick 11 Q. B. 205. Rex v. OrgillENR 9 C. & P. 80. Drake's caseENR 1 Lewin, 25. Regina......