Westby v Skinner and Catcher
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1682 |
| Date | 01 January 1682 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 79 E.R. 1197
IN THE KING'S BENCH.
POPHAM.8J. WESTBY V. SKINNER AND CATCHER 1197 [85] hill. 37 eliz. in the king's bench. westby versus skinner and catcher. See this case in Coke, 3 Report, fol. 71.6. Prisoners in execution to be delivered over to the new sheriff by indenture, and all the executions to be therein moved. 1. In debt by Titus Westby plaintiff, against Thomas Skinner and John Catcher, late Sheriffs of London, defendants, for 4401. upon nihil debet pleaded, and a special verdict found, the case appeared to be this, to wit, one Anthony Bustard with others, were bound in a recognizance in the nature of a statute-staple of 4401. to the plaintiff, whereupon the plaintiff sued execution out of the Chancery against the said Anthony and the others that were bound with him for the bodies, goods and lands of the aaid obligors which writ of execution was delivered to the said defendants the 8th day of September, 38 Eliz. the defendants then being Sheriffs of London, and the aaid Anthony being then in Newgate in execution, in the custody of the said defendants for 2401. at the suit of one Robert Deighton, and that afterwards, to wit, the 20th day of October in the same year the said defendants were discharged and removed from their said offices, and Hugh Offeley and Eichard Saltonstall were then made Sheriffs of London, and that the said Anthony being in execution for the one and the other debt, the said defendant the said 20th day of October by indenture delivered the said Anthony to the said new sheriffs in execution for the said debt of the said Robert Deighton, not giving them any notice of the said execution made for the plaintiff, and suffered the said Anthony to go at large: and whether the defendants shall be charged for this escape was the question. And the escape was alledged by the declaration to be suffered by the said defendants the said 20th day of October, 30 Eliz. and it was moved by Tanfield, that the new sheriffs ought to take notice of their prisoners remaining in the goal, at their coming into their office, at their peril, and ought to enquire and search for the causes that they then were in custody, and not to deliver them of their own head without due course ol law. And he put the case, that if the old sheriff had been dead, in the mean time before the new sheriffs had been made, shall this be an excuse to the new sheriffs that they had no notice for what cause this Anthony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Higginson v Sheif
...849(1). (a)1 Skinn. 49, S. C. Raym. 421, 467, S. C. Lutw. 937. 2 Mod. 59, 196. 2 Com. Dig. 614. (a)8 Moore 688, S. C. Cro. Eliz. 365, S. C. Poph. 85, S. C. 2 Rolle Abr. 457. 4 Bac. Abr. 445. (J) Holt 186, S. C. (c) 1 Freem. 193, S. C. (1) " Where the inferior jurisdiction is confined to pla......
-
King against Sir Eusebie Andrews, late Sheriff of the County of Northampton
...not the defendant, yet if it appear that the prisoner was legally in custody, the plaintiff shall have judgment. 1 Sid. 5. 335. 3 Co. 71. Popham 85. Cro. Eliz. 33. 365. 884. 2 Leon. 54. Hard. 30. 33. 1 Strange, 595. Action upon the case, for suffering one Burdet to escape, who was indebted ......
-
Lewis and Another v Sapio
...but they all agreed that he had never been in the custody of the new sheriff Indeed, inD'Abridgecourt's case, as cited in Cro Eliz. 366, and Poph 85, it is said, that where the old sheriff kept a prisoner in execution in a house at Warwick, and did not deliver him over by indenture to his s......
-
Bourne against Cooling
...for an escape, that the prisoner by virtue of a habeas corpus to the Fleet was committed to the marshal), is bad.-3 Co. 72. Cro. Jac. 588. Poph. 85 2 Leon. 54. 1 Salk. 272. 2 Stra. 1226. 1 Term Eep. 238. Case, upon an escape, against the defendant, being marshal of the King's Bench, for the......