70 C ommerciat Law Caſes»[July
cuſtody. The bailiff received a writ to execute againſt the plaintiff, and ſending his follower to appriſe the latter of the circumſtance, conſented to ſuſpend the caption till the Saturday following: in the interim the plaintiff paid the debt and 16s: 6d. coſts; but Harrop net deeming the latter ſuffi- cient, demanded the further ſum of al. 10s. which‘being refuſed, he arreßted the gentleman on the writ which had been ſued out, although he well knew that the debt for the recovery of which it had been granted had been diſ- charged.—For falſe impriſonment under theſe circumſtances the a&ion was brought.—The Court declared tne charge to have been exorbitant; a Sheriffs Officer being entitled to no more than one guinea in caſes where the debt does not exceed 2001.
P1iGMAaN, u. PaRLER.—This was an iſſue from the Court of Chancery, to try whether Mefſ. Steel, of Sutton, lime-burneſs, whoſe bankruptcy had made ſe much noiſe, were indebted at any period of the year 1788 to Mr. Durant, a gentleman of fortune in the county, in the ſum of xool. or uPp- warás.—U pon the reſult of the inquiry depended the validity of the ſtatute of bankiuptcy and all the ſubiequent proceedings. Both the Mr. Steels and alſo Mr. Durant were examined, and clearly proved that in the month of Odtober, 1788, there exiſted a debt due to the latter for money lent, to the amount of 600l.—The Mr. Steels underwent very rigid examinations from Mr Erſkine and Mr. Gibbs; but they paſſed through the ordeal with infi- nite credit to themſelves. Their teſtimony was believed: and a verdi& was pronounced afhrming the debt.
{The KinG,&. STONE.—This was a caſe which excited a great deal of at- tention. It was a queſtion upon a conviétior under the game laws, Mr, M’Intoſh, with great ability, argued that the convi&ion was bad,becauſe rhe evidence and abjudication did not negative the qualification of the defendant to Kill game. Mr. Gibbs argued that the proot of the negative reſted with the defendant, and therefore that the convi&ion was right. The Judges were divided in opinion. Lord Kenyon and Mr. Juſtice Groſe thought the conviétion was wrong, and Mr. Juſtice Lawrance and Mr. Juſtice Le Blanc thought it was right. Judgment was of courſe ſuſpended.
DELÁKE, V. COPLEY.— This was a cauſe on the execution of an en- graving from the pi&ure on the death of Lord Chatham. Many witneſſes were examined on both ſides, to aſcertain whether the pi&ure was properly engraved. The Jury gave a verdiét of 6 zol. for the plaintiff.
DARLY,%. NIcHoLs0N.—The plaintiff had taken out a patent for a perpetual oven, which his own witneſſes proved had been taken from a Magazine of 1761, Plaintiff nonſuited.
TURNER,%. Douav.—The queſtion was, whether the plaintiff had Kept a bill endorſed to her from the defendant longer than he ought to do after it was due. Verdid& for the plaintiff, ſubje&Æ to the opinion of the Court.
HARRIS, Vv. MoRR1s.—Aion to recover for board,&c. of the defendant?s wnife, who had’ eloped.— Juror withdrawn.
WILDMAN, v. SMITH.—Adion to recover 471, for a mare ſold by the defendant, and warranted ſound, but failing in the proof.—The Jury gave a condud for defendant.
FORSTER,&. BURGH.—The defendant, when only ſeventeen years of age, ordered a gig of the plaintiff, which was delivered, value 1051. and be bas attempted to recover 0n a plea that the plaintiff had renewed the contra& after he came of age. Failing in his proof, a verdi was given for the de- Fendant.
L»©. MiLEs.—ARion to recover for lodging of a woman who paſſed for the defendant's wife,‘and on which he infiſted, Verdi for plaintiff.
HUNT, v. LoRInG.—AGMion to recove the value of thre puncheons of gin loſt by the negligence of the defendant. Verdi& for the plaintiff, ſabje& to the opinion of the Court.;