Page images
PDF
EPUB

19th of November, and the attachment not sued out and served on the sheriff until the 9th of March following, the court (of C. P.) held the sheriff discharged, and set aside the attachment. R. v. Perring. 3 Bos. & Pull. 151.

15. Where bail are put in after attaching the sheriff, and a trial has not been lost, the court will set aside the attachment; for in this case the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of it as a security in case he should recover. Secus if a trial has been lost. Hill v. Bolt. 4 T. Rep. 332. Gravett v. Williams. 4 Callan v. Tye.

Term Rep. 352, n. 2 H. Black. 235. 16. Upon an application to set aside an attachment against the sheriff for not bringing in the body, bail having been put in and no trial lost, the court require an affidavit of merits, if the application come from the defendant, but not if it come bona fide from the sheriff. R. v. Surry Sheriff. 7 Term Rep.

239.

17. But where such attachment has
regularly issued, the court will on
no account relieve the sheriff, if it
appear that he let the defendant out
of custody without taking from him
such a bail-bond as is required by
the statute. 7 Term Rep. 239.
18. The sheriff is liable to an attach-
ment for not bringing in the body,
if the allowance of bail be not
served, though the bail justified. 4
Term Rep. 493.

19. The court will not discharge an
attachment against a sheriff for not
returning a writ of execution, ex-
cept upon payment of the whole
debt and costs, and the costs of the
application, where there are cir-
cumstances attending the transac-
tion which induce a suspicion of
fraud in the party obtaining a prior-
ity in execution, or in the sheriff's
bailiff. R. v. Middlesex Sheriff. 1
H. Black. 543.

20. After an attachment against the

the court (of K. B.) will only relieve him upon paying the whole debt and costs, and not merely the sum sworn to and costs. Heppel v. King. 7 Terim Rep. 370.

21. If the sheriff discharge the defendant without taking a bail-bond, the court will not permit the defendant to file common bail on paying the sum sworn to, if the plaintiff have any claim on him beyond that sum. Stevenson v. Cameron. 8 Term Rep.

28.

22. An attachment against the sheriff granted on the 24th of January, was set aside (in K. B.) for irregularity, he having been ruled to bring in the body on the 23d of November preceding, which expired on the 28th, and having put in bail above on the 24th, though the time for putting it in expired on the 22d; and the defendant being surrendered in discharge of his bail on the 28th, without the bail having justified. R. V. Middlesex Sheriff. 7 Term Rep.

527.

23. The rule of court of T. 33 G..3,
(as to rendering a defendant, see
5 Term Rep. 368; the first rule
there) extends to the case of the
sheriff. 7 Term Rep. 527.
24. The court of K. B. determined,
that if the sheriff be once in con
tempt for not bringing in the body,
that contempt is not purged by the
defendant surrendering on a subse-
quent day; though before an at-
tachment be moved for against the
sheriff. R. v. Middlesex Sheriff,
(in Taylor v. Odlin.) 8 Term Rep.

29.

25. But in this the practice of K. B. differs (and so the court stated in the preceding case) from that of C P., which latter determied, that though the rule to bring in the body has expired, yet if the defendant justify bail, before the plaintiff moves for an attachment against the sheriff, it is in time to prevent the attachment. Thorold v. Fisher. 1 H. Black. 9.

sheriff for not bringing in the body, 26. In the court of C. P. bail were

allowed to justify after the rule on the sheriff had expired, on payment of the costs of the opposition. Weddall v. Beyer. 1 Bos. & Pull. 325. 27. And in the same term, that court allowed the defendant to justify bail, after an attachment issued against the sheriff, but gave leave to the plaintiff to oppose them without prejudice. Williams v. Waterfield. 1 Bos. & Pull. 334.

28. And where bail were brought up on the same day on which an attachment had been obtained against the sheriff, that court permitted the bail to justify and set aside the attachment, on payment of costs: and as the rule for the attachment had not been drawn up, the costs given were only those of preparing it. Turner v. Bristow. 2 Bos. & Pull.

38.

if the rule to bring in the body issues before the time for putting in bail has expired, yet if the sheriff negleet to apply to the court in due time to set aside the attachment, the irregularity is waived. Rolfe v. Steele. 2 H. Black. 276. 33. Where a rule to bring in the body expires on the last day of term, plaintiff may at the rising of the court on that day, move for an attachment, which may be accordingly issued on the following day, provided bail shall not then be perfected, or the defendant surrendered. Reg. Gen. 1 Bos. & Pull. 312. 34. If the affidavit upon which a motion for attachment be founded, merely state that the officer of the sheriff was served with a copy of the rule to bring in the body, but do not add that the original rule was shewn to him, the court will set aside the attachment. Barnard v. Berger. New Rep. 121. 35. The rule for an attachment against the sheriff, twenty days after service of the former rule, applies only to cases of writs, and not to the bringing in of the body of the defendant. Franklain V. Lamb. Johns. Rep. 508. 36. A rule for an attachment against a sheriff for not returning an execution delivered to his deputy, was granted, though twelve years had elapsed since the execution was issued. Brockway v. Wilber. Jons. Rep. 356.

29. The court of K. B. holds, that
where bail are put in, in due time, an
exception must be entered before
the sheriff can be ruled to bring in
the body and that the adding bail
afterwards, does not supersede the
necessity of such exception, before
an attachment can issue against the
sheriff on account of the added bail
not having justified in due time. R.
v. Middlesex Sheriff. 8 T Rep. 258.
30. Where an exception to bail was
regularly entered, and the defend-
ant's attorney having verbal notice
of it, proceeded by giving notice
of justification, and attempting to
justify, yet the court (of C. P.) held,
that notice in writing of such ex-
ception, must have been given to
make the sheriff liable to an attach-
ment for not bringing in the body.
Cohn v. Davis. 1 H. Black. 80.
31. So that court held, that notice of
justification of bail is not such a
waiver of the default of not giving
notice of exception. as to support a
rule on the sheriff to bring in the 1.
body; though it is a waiver as be-
tween the plaintiff and defendant.
Rogers v. Mapleback. 1 H. Black.

106.
32. The court of C. P. held. that

though an attachment is irregular,

1

5

37. An attachment against a sheriff for not bringing in the body of a defendant cannot be issued until 20 days after service of a notice of a rule for that purpose. Stewart v. Williams. 2 Johns. Cas. 71.

III. Against privileged Persons.

Attachment may issue against a peer for contempt, and against the chancellor for not returning a fieri fa. de bonis ecclesiastisis. The King V. The Bishop of Asaph. 1 Wilson,

332,

[blocks in formation]

4. The court will not grant an attachment against a peer for not paying money awarded, though the defendant consent that it shall issue, on condition that it shall lie in the office for a certain time. Walker v. The Earl of Grosvenor. 7 Term Rep. 171. 5. Nor against a member of parliament. Catmur v. Sir E. Knatchbull. 7 Term Rep. 448.

IV. Against others for contempt.

1. Attachment granted against a witness for not attending on a subpœna, but he ought to have a reasonable time allowed. Hammond v. Stewart. 1 Strange, 510. The same point, Wyatt v. Winkworth. 2 Strange, 810. 2 L. Raymond,

1528.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

turn, though the original process was at a day certain. The King v. Wilkins. 1 Str. 624.

7. No attachment on affidavit to a rescue without a return to a ca. sa. Sheathen v. Holt. 1 Str. 531. 2 Salk. 586.

8.

The King's Bench will grant an attachment against the judge of an inferior court for misconduct. It is misconduct to sit as a judge in a cause in which he is a party. Wright v. Crump. 2 L. Raymond, 766. 1 Salk. 201. Queen v. Hill. Same point. 1 Salk. 396.

9.

But

Attachment granted for arresting a plaintiff while attending arbitrators under a rule of court, on purpose to prejudice his cause. two days notice of bail on such attachment is not requisite, nor need the bail justify. King v. Hall. 2 Blackstone, 1119.

10. Upon articles of the peace in K. B. bailable before justices of the county. K. & Bomaster, &c. 1 Blackstone, 233.

11. An attachment granted against the prochein amy of an infant (plaintiff) for non-payment of costs after judgment for the defendant. Slaughter v. Talbot. Willes, 190. 12. An attachment is grantable against a man who escapes out of confinement upon an attachment. Anonymous. 1 L. Raym. 396. 13. If B. R. confirms an order of sessions, it will compel obedience to it. by attachment.

But after it has been obeyed for some time, it will not grant an attachment against a man who disobeys it. Rex v. Inhabitantes of Mileend. 1 L. Raym. 676.

14. Attachment absolute on first motion, and sheriff ordered to take posse. The King v. Jones. 1 Str.

185.

[blocks in formation]

instance, granted against the coroners, for not attaching the sheriff pursuant to rule of court, and directed to Elisors, to be named by plaintiff, and approved by the Prothonotary. Andrews v. Sharp. 2 Black, 911. King v. Peckham. 2 Black. 1218.

17. The court will not grant an attachment against an administrator for not performing a rule of court entered into by the intestate. Newton v. Walker. Willes, 315. 18. Attachment against a bailiff for refusing to make an affidavit of the service of process, when required. The King v. Rudge. 1 Blackstone,

[blocks in formation]

22. No rule for an attachment (either in K. B, or C. P.) shall be absolute in the first instance, except for non-payment of costs on an allocatur. Chaunt v. Smart. 1 Bos. & Pull. 477.

23. If a defendant in a penal action obtain a rule to stay proceedings on paying a sum agreed upon between him and the plaintiff, it is an undertaking by him to pay that sum, and for the non-payment of it the court will grant an attachment. King q. t. v. Clifton. 5 Term Rep. 257. 24. If an arbitrator award, among other things, that each party shall pay a moiety of the costs of the arbitration, and of making the submission a rule of court; and one party, in order to get the award out of the hands of the arbitrator, pay the whole, he may have an attachment against the other party if he

refuse to pay his moiety. Hicks v. Richardson. 1 Bos. & Pull. 93. 25. An attachment may be granted for making an insufficient return to the first writ of habeas corpus, without issuing an alias and a pluries writ. R. v. Winton. 5 Term Rep.

89.

26. The ten days after a demand of costs under a recognizance taken by virtue of stat. 5 W. and M. c. 11, s. 2, 3, must elapse before an attachment can be granted against the party refusing to pay them. R. v. Ireland. 3 Term Rep. 512. 27. Though the plaintiff discontinue on the common rule on payment of costs, he is not liable to an attachment for non-payment. Stokes v. Woodeson. 7 Term Rep. 6. 28. Where plaintiff sued as a pauper, and defendant put off the trial on undertaking to pay the costs of the day, an attachment was granted by the court of C. P. for non-payment. Rice v. Brown. 1 Bos. & Pull.

39.

29. An affidavit to support a rule for an attachment for a contempt must state that the defendant was served personally with a copy of the rule, and that the original was shewn to him at the same time. R. v. Smithies. 3 Term Rep. 351. (See ante

1.) 30. But where a mandamus has been granted for the election of a mayor under stat. 11 G. 1, c. 4, s. 2; and a rule made that public notice should be affixed in the market place, which has been done accordingly, the court will grant an attachment for disobeying the mandamus, against a member of the corporation who was served with a copy of the rule, notwithstanding neither the original mandamus or rule was shewn to him at the time; for the public notice directed by the act is prima facie sufficient. R. v.

J. Edyvean. 3 Term Rep. 352. 31. Though the application for the attachment would be well answered, if the party could shew that he had

32.

no notice of the mandamus. 3 Term 4. Rep. 352.

Where a rule had been granted for a quo warranto information against A. as mayor of B., on the relation of some of the corporators, and another rule in that cause for inspecting all the corporation books, papers, &c. directed to the town elerk, an inspection of such only as related to the election and office of mayor was held a sufficient compliance with the latter rule, so as to protect the town clerk from an attachment as for a contempt of the court, it appearing that he had acted bona fide. R. v. G. Babb. 3 Term Rep.

579.

33. The court of C. P. refused to grant an attachment against a witness, for not obeying a subpæna to attend at a trial; on the ground that the whole expences of the journey, and of the necessary stay at the place of trial were not tendered at the time of serving the subpæna. Fuller v. Prentice. 1 H. Black.

49.

5.

[blocks in formation]

6. Interrogatories to be exhibited to a person, against whom an attachment has been ordered, must be signed by counsel. Reg. Gen. 5 Term Rep. 474.

7.

1.

4. A subpoena may be issued from
the crown-office requiring a witness
to attend at the assizes in the
country to give evidence in support
of an intended prosecution for a
felony and the court of K. B. will 2.
grant an attachment against him
for not attending in obedience to
the subpæna. R. v. G. Ring. 8
Term Rep. 585.

V. Interrogatories on.

1. On an attachment party not bound to answer what may convict him of another offence. The King v. Barber. 1 Strange, 444.

2. On attachment for a rescue, the defendant may be fined without answering interrogatories. K. & Elkins. 1 Blackstone, 640.

On attachment, the defendant cannot confess the contempt, and receive judgment, till after the interrogatories are filed. K. & Edcards & Symonds. 1 Blackstone,

637.

Where a sheriff is brought up on an attachment, the plaintiff must file his interrogatories in four days; and the sheriff must enter into a recognizance to appear from day to day. Herring v. Tylee. 1 Johnss Cas. 31.

VI. When refused, &c.

For altering a sheriff's warrant, if no ill use be made of it, refused. Hale and Castleman. 1 Black. 2.

The master's report upon attachment cannot be moved for on the last day of the term, except upon extraordinary cases, and personal service of notice. K. and Wheeler 1 Black. 311.

3. An attachment goes of course for non-performance of an award, and is now considered only as a civil proceeding. Skipp v. Hastwood. Willes, 292. In notis. Lofft, 451.

4.

Attachment is never absolute in the first instance where cause may be shewn. Anon. Lofft, 159. And Anon. Lofft, 304.

It is not in the nature of an original.
Anon. Lofft, 273.

5. But attachment of privilege in the
common pleas in the nature of an
original writ, and when it is repli-
ed to save the statute of limitations,

« PreviousContinue »