ther what is being done creates an evil. I do not, however, think there is any possibility of an evil being created in that time. I cannot say what will take place afterwards, because a continuation of a nuisance may be indicted just as much as the creation of it, and if the evil hereafter occurs, it can be met. Therefore, what I think I ought to do, is to dismiss the present information and bill, but without prejudice, and thus not recognise any right if a nuisance should be created. I should, therefore, preface it in this form: -The Court being of opinion that the evidence does not establish the existence of any nuisance in respect of the works executed, or intended to be executed, by the defendants, or any case for the interference of the Court in respect of the nuisance to be apprehended if such works be carried into complete effect, let the information be dismissed, without prejudice to any proceedings on the part of the Attorney-General or the plaintiffs, in the event of such work occasioning a nuisance. I think, on the whole, it is a case which ought not to be dismissed with costs, for this reason--first, that the corporation of Kingston have set up this strange claim for a prescription to do whatever they please, without any regard to what may be the consequences of pouring any quantity of sewage they think fit into the river; and, secondly, because they were apparently threatening proceedings with reference to cutting through the towing-path, which they have now withdrawn. Looking at these two subjects, and the very high exercise of right which the corporation have claimed, I think this is not a case in which I ought to dismiss the information with costs. Note for reference-Set. Dec. 898. The respondent, being on his own land, raised a pheasant, which he shot after it had flown over his boundary, and while it was in the air over his neighbour's land, upon which he entered for the purpose of picking up the dead bird. Upon information against him for trespassing in search of game," under the 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 32, 8. 30, the justices dismissed the case:-Held (distinguishing Osbond v. Meadows, 31 L. J., M. C., 238; S. C., 8 Jur., N. S., 1079), that they were not bound to convict. Sect. 30 has no application to dead game. 66 Case stated by justices under the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. At a petty sessions of the peace, holden at Ashford, in the county of Kent, on the 5th November, 1864, the respondent, Stephen Hart, appeared to answer an information exhibited by the appellant, James Kenyon, gamekeeper, charging the respondent that he did, on the 1st October, 1864, at the parish of Westhall, unlawfully commit a certain trespass, by being, in the daytime of the said day, upon certain arable land in the possession and occupation of Henry Tappenden, there in search of game, without the license or consent of the owner of the land so trespassed upon, or of any other person having the right to authorise the respondent to enter or be upon the land for the purpose aforesaid, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, whereby the respondent had forfeited a sum of money not exceeding 27. On the hearing of the case, the appellant, on hi oath, stated, "I am under-keeper to Sir Richard Tutton, Bart. On the 1st October last, about half-past ten in the morning, the respondent was out shooting. He shot a cock pheasant, and it fell on Mr. Tappenden's field, belonging to Sir Richard Tufton. He went and fetched the bird himself, taking his dog and gun with him. The respondent was on his own land when he shot the pheasant, and it rose off the land. The pheasant was dead when the respondent picked it up and laid it upon its back." When the respondents solicitor was addressing the Court, the chairman re called the appellant, and asked him whether, when the respondent shot the pheasant, it was or was not in the air over the land belonging to Sir Richard Tufton The appellant replied, that it was over Sir Richard Tufton's land, and fell a considerable distance within his boundary. The respondent's solicitor objected to the question being put after the appellant had heard the opening of the respondent's case. The respondent's attorney contended, on his behalf, first, that upon the appellant's evidence no trespass, within the meaning of the act (1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 32, s. 30), had been com mitted, as the pheasant rose off the respondent's land and the respondent was on his own land when he shot the bird. Secondly, that sect. 30 of the above-mentioned act did not apply to game when dead. Having heard the evidence of the appellant, and the argument of the respondent's attorney, we dismissed the cas the grounds of our determination being-"That the pheasant was raised off the respondent's land, and shot by him while he (the respondent) was upon his own land, the mere act of entering the land, stated in the information for the purpose of picking up the pheasant, which was then dead, as proved by the evidence, was, in our opinion, not such a trespass in par suit of game as is contemplated by sect. 30 of the 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 32." The question for the opinion of the Court is, whe ther we were right, in point of law, in dismissing the case on the ground above stated? Keane, Q. C., for the appellant.-The respondent was guilty of an offence, under sect. 30 of the 1 &? That section enacts, "If any person shall commit any Will. 4, c. 32, and the justices should have convicted trespass, by entering or being in the daytime upon any land in search or pursuit of game, he shall, on coviction thereof, forfeit and pay such sum of money, not exceeding 27., as to the justice shall seem meet, with a proviso," that a person charged with such tre pass may prove, by way of defence, any matter which would have been a defence to an action at law for such trespass, save and except that the leave and li cense of the occupier of the land so trespassed upon shall not be a sufficient defence in any case wher the landlord, lessor, &c. shall have the right of killing the game, by virtue of any reservation," &c. [Blark burn, J.-The case finds that the bird was dead at the time the respondent committed the trespass for the purpose of picking it up. The question is, whether the section contemplates dead game. Crompton, J.If the pheasant had been wounded, instead of killed outright, there might have been some difficulty, inas much as in that case the respondent, to have got pas session of it, must have pursued and hunted it down, and thus, in all probability, have brought himself within the terms of the section. The section has reference to live, and not dead, game.] The case come within the section, inasmuch as the words "in search of" are applicable to dead, as "pursuit of" is to living. game; the respondent, moreover, in crossing the boundary, committed a civil trespass; and the comments of Williams, J., upon sect. 46 of the act, in delivering judgment in Morden v. Porter (29 L. J., M. C., 213), 29 tre in point. [Blackburn, J.-No doubt a trespass the boundary has been passed. In Reg. v. Pratt. has been committed by the respondent; but in con- (4 El. & Bl. 860; S. C., 1 Jur., N. S., 681). it was ending that it was a trespass within the meaning of held that, to constitute a trespass under sect. 30, there ect. 30, you must go the length of saying that the must be a personal entry upon the land, and that ection would apply to a person trespassing on the the mere sending of a dog on the land of another, and or premises of another for the purpose of ob- or firing a gun across it, is not such a trespass as sining possession of dead game suspended in a larder.] the section contemplates. Here, however, the facts 1 Osbond v. Meadows (31 L. J., M. C., 238; S. C., are, that the respondent, standing on his own land, Jur., N. S., 1079), the information charged the re-shot the pheasant which rose on his own land while ondent with being in "pursuit of game;" had the flying across the land of his neighbour, and then comord "search" been employed instead, the case would mitted a trespass upon the said land for the purpose tve presented no difficulty. There, in delivering judg- of picking up the dead bird; and the case is said to nt, Erle, C. J., says, "I reserve for another time, be brought within Osbond v. Meadows. That decision, ether the entering the land for the purpose of pick- though entitled to the highest respect, is not binding up dead game constituted a trespass within the upon us, and we should, if we saw occasion, dissent tute. But I am satisfied to give my judgment for from it. But, in truth, the facts there were not preappellant, on the ground that, in substance and cisely on all-fours with those of the present case. lity, the whole was one transaction. Shooting a There the bird was actually resting on the ground of the don a neighbour's land, and stepping on to pick it prosecutor when shot, and the Court of Common Pleas is a trespass. The picking up of the bird relates were of opinion that the justices, who had dismissed to the shot." And Williams, J., says, "I think the case, might well have convicted, if they thought e pursuit, under sect. 30, continues until it is con- that the firing of the gun, and the subsequent trespass mmated by the picking up of the bird." [He also to get possession of the dead bird, were, in fact, differred to Loome v. Bailey (6 Jur., N. S., 1299; S. C., ferent stages of the same transaction. We are not, | L. J., M. C., 31); Rex v. Marsh (2 B. & Cr. 717); therefore, called upon to dissent from that case; nor, id the 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 32, ss. 27, 28.] on the other hand, is it necessary for us to say that we Denman, Q. C., for the respondent.-Sect. 30 has no entirely agree with it; inasmuch as, in the present plication where a person, knowing dead game to be case, all that is found is consistent with this state of ing on his neighbour's land, crosses the boundary to facts-that the respondent, when he fired the gun, ssess himself of it, or, in other words, it has reference never contemplated any trespass upon the land of his live game only. Osbond v. Meadows, whether rightly neighbour; but that, having fired, and seeing the bird wrongly decided, is distinguishable; there, the bird lying dead, he crossed the boundary for the purpose is deliberately shot while resting on the soil of the of reducing it to possession. The justices in this case mplainant's close; and the Court thought the act of have not drawn the conclusion that the going over the ing the shot, followed up by the trespass to pick up boundary for the dead bird, after firing the shot, was e bird, constituted, in fact, one transaction. Here simply a consummation of what was, in truth, one he information charges a trespass upon land in search continuing transaction; but they ask whether they of game; and this is not applicable to the facts of the were justified in dismissing the case, upon the ground ase, inasmuch as the bird was known to be lying that the mere act of entering the land to pick up a here dead, and search was unnecessary. [He was dead bird was not such a trespass as is contemplated hen stopped.] by sect. 30. We do not say that they would have been wrong in drawing the other conclusion, still they have not drawn it, and we see no reason for disturbing their decision. Keane was heard in reply. BLACKBURN, J.-I am of opinion that the justices ere right, both in the decision at which they arred, and in confining themselves to the single queson proposed in the case. [His Lordship read sect. In considering the effect of this section, I ve no doubt but that it has reference to the entry on land in search of or in pursuit of living game aly; and this, I should say, is the view entertained by my Brother Crompton, who has been comalled to leave the court; and we are further of opilon that sects. 28 and 29, to which we have been ferred, and which lay down rules for the conduct of arsons dealing with game, as well as the case of Rex Marsh, relate to dead game, and have, therefore, bearing upon the present question. If a man enter close or garden of another person, in order to get his larder, in which dead game has been deposited, hat could never be said to constitute an offence under eet, 30, nor, in my opinion, is the respondent in the resent case brought within the meaning of the secfon by the commission of a slight civil trespass, the bject of which was to pick up a pheasant, which, as he case finds, was already dead. The bird appears have risen on the respondent's own land, to have rossed the boundary separating the two estates, to have been fired at and killed while in the air, and to ave fallen on the land of Sir Richard Tufton; and here is, in my opinion, no difference in point of law etween flying and four-footed game, such as deer or mares, in cases where the question is whether or not * Crompton, J., had left the court. MELLOR, J.-I am also of opinion that the magistrates were justified, upon the evidence before them, in dismissing the case, and entirely agree with the construction put by the rest of the Court upon the words "trespass in search or pursuit of game." viz. that the Legislature intended that these words should apply to living, and not to dead, game. This, I think, sufficiently appears from the context, and from the general tenor of the section in question. If the case were on all-fours with Osbond v. Meadows, I should have required time for consideration before venturing to dissent from that decision; but the facts of the two cases are so far different, that we may well support the views of the justices, without conflicting with the Court of Common Pleas. I agree, therefore, in thinking that the justices were right in refusing to convict.-Judgment for the respondent. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. [Before ERLE, C. J., BYLES, KEATING, and SMITH, MATTHEY, Administratrix, v. WISEMAN and Another. Lord Mayor's Court- Foreign attachment-Death of de- bad. To an action of debt by plaintiff, as administratrix of serjeants-at-mace and a minister of the court to attach F. M., defendants pleaded, in bar of the further main- such defendant in such plaint by such sum of money tenance of the action, that the debt sued for had been so being in the hands and custody of such other per attached in the Lord Mayor's Court, in a suit by K. son, according to the custom, so that such defendan against F. M., and that K., having had execution of the might appear at the then next court, to be holder debt against the defendants, they had paid it as gar- before the mayor and aldermen in the chamber of the nishees. Replication, that at the time of affirming the Guildhall, to answer the plaintiff in the plea in such plaint, F. M. was dead. Rejoinder, that at the time of plaint specified; and then, if such serjeant-at-max affirming the plaint, no one had administered to the estate and minister of the court return and certify to suc of F. M., but that before execution the plaintiff adminis- court, such defendant to be attached, according to tered, and might, by the custom, have appeared in the the custom, by such sum of money so being in the Mayor's Court, and dissolved the attachment. On de- hands and custody of such other person, to be de murrer to this rejoinder—Held, that the rejoinder was fended and kept, so that such defendant in suc plaint named might appear at the same or th The commencing and prosecution of an action against a then next court holden, or to be holden, to answe non-existing defendant amounts to a nullity; the judg- the plaintiff in the plea in such plaint specified ment even of a court of record in such a case, therefore, and if the defendant at that and three other cont is not conclusive, and an alleged custom, by which the then next severally holden, or to be holden, befo: deceased's representative could come in and dissolve the the mayor and aldermen of the said city, in the ch attachment under the suit, is unreasonable and void. ber of the Guildhall of the said city, being solem Declaration by Frances Matthey, as administratrix called, does not appear, but makes default; and suc of the personal estate and effects of Frederick Mat- four defaults, according to the custom of the sa they, for money payable by the defendants to the said city, are recorded against such defendant at such fo Frederick Matthey, in his lifetime; for money received courts after such attachment made; and if such plain by the defendants for the use of Frederick Matthey; tiff in such plaint named, at every such four courts, i for money found to be due from the defendants to his own person, or by his attorney, appear and ofe Frederick Matthey, on accounts stated between them; himself against such defendant in the plea in sa for money payable by the defendants to the plaintiff, plaint specified, according to the custom of the as administratrix; and for money received by the de- city, then at the last of the said four courts, or at an fendants to the use of the plaintiff, as administratrix. court holden, or to be holden, after such four defaal Pleas-first, never indebted. recorded at the petition of such plaintiff in such plain Secondly, payment. named made to the court, it is and has been used fo the court to command such or any other serjeant-st mace and minister of the court to warn such other appear Thirdly, and for a further plea, the defendants say, that the plaintiff, as such administratrix as aforesaid, ought not to maintain her action against the defend-person so being found within the said city, according ants, because they say that the city of London now is, and immemorially has been, an ancient city, and that there is, and immemorially has been, a custom therein, that if any person affirms, or hath affirmed, a plaint in debt in the court of her present Majesty, or her predecessors, kings or queens of England, held or to be holden before the mayor and aldermen of the said city for the time being in the chamber of the Guildhall of the said city, within the said city, according to the custom of the said city; and upon such plaint it be, or hath been, commanded by the court to any of the serjeants-at-mace and ministers of the said court to summon such person named defendant in such plaint, to appear in the same court to answer the plaintiff in such plaint; and if it is or has been certified and returned by such serjeant-at-mace and minister of the said court, that the defendant in such plaint has or had nothing within the said city or the liberties thereof, whereby he can or could be summoned, nor is nor was to be found within the said city, and such defendant at that court, being solemnly called, makes or has made default, and in the same court it is or has been alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint, that any other person owes or has owed to any such defendant any sum of money amounting to the debt in such plaint specified, or any part thereof, then, at the petition of such plaintiff made to the same court for process according to the custom of the said city-that is to say, that such person so owing or having owed such debt as aforesaid, being found within the jurisdiction of the said court, may or might be warned by the said serjeant-at-mace, or minister of the said court, not to part with such sum of money so being in his hands and custody without license of the said court, but the same in his hands and custody keep, so that the said defendant might be attached thereby, that he might appear in the same court to answer the said plaintiff in the plea in such plaint specified, it is and has been commanded by the court to one of the to the custom of the said city, to be and at an , ed, and had in execution, amount not, nor has and thereupon the said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, & Co., unted, in the whole to the sum of the debt in and by their attorney, then and there prayed process ache said plaint demanded by such plaintiff against cording to such custom, to attach the said Frederick defendant, then such plaintiff, by the custom of Matthey by the said 21837. 178. 9d., so being in the aid court, is, and from time immemorial has been, hands and custody of the now defendants, so that the and accustomed to have process against such de- said Frederick Matthey might appear at the next such int, according to such custom, for the residue of court to be holden before the mayor and aldermen of ebt by him in such plaint demanded. And the the said city in the chamber of the Guildhall, of and defendants further say, that the said custom, and in the said city, to answer the said Messrs. Kelson, her customs, of the said city, obtained and used Tritton, & Co., in the plea in the said plaint specified; e said city all the time aforesaid, were, by autho- whereupon at their said petition it was then and there of a Parliament holden in the 7 Geo. 2 (late commanded by such court before the commencement of England), ratified and confirmed to the then of this action, to the said serjeant-at-mace and minister r, &c. of the said city, and their successors. And of the said court, that he, according to such custom, fendants in this suit further say, that Charles should attach the said Frederick Matthey by the said n, Vincent Biscoe Tritton, Edward Parkenham 21837. 17s. 9d., so being in the hands and custody of son, Peter Godfrey Chapman, and Ernest Tho- the now defendants, and the same in their hands and lankey, trading under the style or firm of Messrs. custody defend and keep according to such custom, n, Tritton, & Co., and hereinafter called Messrs. so that the said Frederick Matthey might appear at n, Tritton, & Co., before the commencement of the then next such court, to be holden before the ction of the plaintiff in this suit against the de- mayor and aldermen of the said city, in the Guildhall nts in this suit, to wit, on the 3rd March, 1863, of the said city, to wit, on the 4th March then next, ir own proper persons came into the court of according to such custom, to answer the said Messrs. vereign Lady the Queen, then before the mayor Kelson, Tritton, & Co., in the plea in the said plaint dermen of the said city of London, in the cham-specified; and that the said serjeant-at-mace and the Guildhall, of and within the said city, ac- minister of the said court should then return and cerg to such custom, the said chamber then and tify to such court what he should do by virtue of that eing in, and parcel of, the said Guildhall, and precept, and the same day was given to the said Messrs. and there affirmed a certain plaint against the Kelson, Tritton, & Co. And the now defendants furFrederick Matthey, now deceased, in a plea of ther say, that afterwards, and before the commenceipon demand of 21837. 178. 9d. of lawful money ment of this action, to wit, on the day and year last at Britain; and the same Messrs. Kelson, Trit- aforesaid, they, the now defendants, being then found Co., then in the same court, according to such within the said city, and within the jurisdiction of the 1, found pledges to prosecute suit, to wit, John said court, were then and there duly warned according nd Richard Roe, and then and there appointed to the said custom by the said serjeant-at-mace and ir stead John Michael Pearson, their attorney, minister of the said court, not to part with the said the said Frederick Matthey in the plea of the sum of 21837. 178. 9d. without the license of the said plaint, according to such custom; and it was court, but the same in their hands and custody safely ed to them &c.; whereupon, at the petition of to keep, so that the said Frederick Matthey might be id Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, & Co., then and there attached thereby, that he might appear at the said to such court by their said attorney, and by then next court to answer the said Messrs. Kelson, of such plaint, it was then and there commanded Tritton, & Co. in the plea in the said plaint specified said court to Christopher Fitch, then being and thereby the said serjeant-at-mace duly attached the serjeants-at-mace of such court, that he, the said Frederick Matthey by the said sum of 21837. ing to such custom, should summon, by good 17s. 9d.; and that afterwards, to wit, at the then next nses, the said Frederick Matthey to appear at court holden before the mayor and aldermen of the ne court so holden before the mayor and alder- said city, in the said chamber of the Guildhall of the the said city, in the chamber of the Guildhall of said city, on the said 4th March, in the year last aforei city, to answer the said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, said, the said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, & Co., by their 1 the plea in the said plaint specified; and that the said attorney, appeared, and the said serjeant-at-mace ristopher Fitch should return and certify what returned and certified to the same court, that he, by uld do by virtue of the said precept. And after- virtue of the said precept, had thereupon, to wit, on at the same court the said Christopher Fitch, the 3rd March, in the year last aforesaid, between the ng to such custom, returned and certified to hours of twelve and one of the clock in the afternoon, ne court that the said Frederick Matthey had attached the said Frederick Matthey by the said 21831. g within the said city, or the liberties thereof, 178. 9d., so being in the hands and custody of the now y he could be summoned, nor was he to be defendants; and the same had defended and kept in within the same, and thereupon the said Fre- their hands and custody according to such custom, so Matthey was then and there at the same court that the said Frederick Matthey might appear at the ly called, and did not appear, but made default; said court so holden on the 4th March, in the year last ereupon and afterwards, and before the com- aforesaid, to answer the said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, nent of this action, to wit, the day and year & Co. in the plea in the said plaint specified. And entioned, it was alleged by the said Messrs. Kel- thereupon the said Frederick Matthey at the same ritton, & Co., by their said attorney, that the court was solemnly called, but did not appear, but ames Wiseman and William Wilson, the now then made a first default, which said first default at ants, owed to the said Frederick Matthey 21837. the same court was recorded according to such custom; !, in moneys numbered as the proper moneys of and thereupon, according to such custom, a further day id Frederick Matthey, and then detained the was then given by the same court to the said Frederick in their hands and custody. And the now de- Matthey to appear at the then next such court to be its further say that they, the now defendants, holden before the mayor and aldermen of the said time when it was by the said Messrs. Kelson, city, in the chamber of the Guildhall of the said city, n, & Co., by their said attorney, so alleged as on the 5th March, in the year last aforesaid, to answer foresaid, were, and were found within the said the said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, & Co. in the plea in and within the jurisdiction of the same court; their said plaint specified, and the same day was by the said court given to the said Messrs. Kelson, given by the same court to the said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, & Co. according to such custom; at which Tritton, & Co. to be there according to such custom. said next such court holden on the day and year And the now defendants further say, that afterwards, last mentioned, the said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, & to wit, on the day and year last aforesaid, they, the Co., by their attorney, appeared and offered them- now defendants, were in the said city duly warned selves against the said Frederick Matthey in the plea by the serjeant-at-mace, to be and appear at such in the said plaint specified according to such custom; court to be so as aforesaid holden on the said 24th and thereupon at the same court the said Frederick November, to shew cause why the said Messrs, Kelson, Matthey was again solemnly called, but did not ap- Tritton, & Co. should not have execution of the said pear, and then made a second default, which was re- sum of 21837. 178. 9d. ; at which said court, holden on corded at the same court according to such custom; the said 24th November, in the year last aforesaid, the and thereupon, according to such custom, a further said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, & Co., by their said day was then given by the said court to the said attorney, appeared, and the said serjeant-at-mace then Frederick Matthey to appear at the then next such returned and certified to the same court, that he, by court to be holden before the mayor and alder- virtue of such precept to him directed, and according men of the said city, in the chamber of the Guild- to such custom, warned and made known to the hall of the said city, on the 6th March, in the year now defendants, the garnishees, to be and appear at last aforesaid, to answer the said Messrs. Kelson, the same court to shew such cause; and thereupon Tritton, & Co., in the plea in their said plaint specified, at the same court, the now defendants, the garnishces and the same day was, by the same court, given to the in such attachment, were solemnly called according t said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, & Co., according to such such custom, but did not appear, but made default; custom; at which said next such court, holden on the and thereupon, according to such custom, it was con day and year last aforesaid, the said Messrs. Kelson, sidered by the same court, that the said Messrs. Kelson Tritton, & Co., by their said attorney, appeared and Tritton, & Co. should have execution of the sai offered themselves against the said Frederick Matthey, 21837. 178. 9d., in moneys numbered so attached in the plea in their said plaint specified according to and that they should retain and hold the same in such custom; and thereupon, at the same court the said full satisfaction of the like sum of 21831. 17. 9 Frederick Matthey was again solemnly called, but did being the amount of the debt in the said plais not appear, and then made a third default, which was mentioned, by sufficient pledges to be found and gives recorded at the same court, according to such custom. by the said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, & Co., in the And thereupon, according to such custom, a further same court, according to such custom, to restore to the day was then given by the same court to the said said Frederick Matthey the said 21834. 178. Id. so Frederick Matthey to appear at the then next such attached, if the said Frederick Matthey, within a year court, before the mayor and aldermen of the said city and a day thence next ensuing, should come into the of London, to be holden in the chamber of the Guild- said court, and disprove or avoid the same debt, it hall of the said city, on the 7th March, in the the said plaint mentioned. Whereupon the said Messrs. year last aforesaid, to answer the said Messrs. Kelson, Kelson, Tritton, & Co., afterwards, to wit, on the day Tritton, & Co., in the plea in their said plaint specified, and year last aforesaid, at the same court, according and the same day was by the same court given to the to such custom, found sufficient pledges, wit said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, & Co., according to such Frederick Halsey Janson and Alfred Wilson, to restor custom; at which said next such court holden on the to the said Frederick Matthey the said 2185l. 17. d day and year last mentioned, the said Messrs. Kelson, so attached, if the said Frederick Matthey, within Tritton, & Co., by their attorney, appeared and offered year and a day thence next ensuing, should come int themselves against the said Frederick Matthey, in the the said court, holden as aforesaid, and disprove plea in their said plaint specified, according to such avoid the debt in the said plaint mentioned, accordin custom; at the same court, the said Frederick Matthey to such custom. And thereupon the said Mess was again solemly called, but did not appear, and then Kelson, Tritton, & Co. afterwards, to wit, on made a fourth default, which was recorded in the day and year last aforesaid, for the purpose of obtai same court, according to such custom. And there- ing execution of the said sum of 21834. 17s. 9d 1 upon, afterwards, and after the said four defaults had attached as aforesaid, sued out of the same com been recorded by the same court against the said according to the custom of the said court, a certai Frederick Matthey in the plea aforesaid, according to precept directed by the said court to the said Chri such custom, the said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, & Co., topher Fitch, being one of the serjeants-at-mace by their attorney, at the same court, prayed process the said court, whereby he was commanded by according to such custom, to warn the now defendants, said court that he should take the now defendants, the garnishees, to be and appear in the same court, to they were to be found within the liberties of Londo be holden on Tuesday, the 24th November, in the and them should safely keep, so that he might ha year last aforesaid, to shew cause why the said Messrs. their bodies there in court without delay, to satisfy t Kelson, Tritton, & Co. should not have execution of said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, & Co., 21831. 178. the said 21837. 178. 9d., so attached in their said hands attached in their hands at the suit of the said Me and custody. Whereupon at such said court so holden Kelson, Tritton, & Co., as the proper moneys of th as aforesaid, at the said petition of the said Messrs. said Frederick Matthey, by due process of attachmet Kelson, Tritton, & Co., made in such court, it was and judgment of the court, there recovered agate commanded by the same court to the said serjeant-at-them, the now defendants, according to the tenor mace that he, according to such custom, should warn and make known to the now defendants, being the garnishees, to be and appear in such court to be as aforesaid holden on the said 24th November, in the year last aforesaid, to shew cause why the said Messrs. Kelson, Tritton, & Co. should not have execution of the said 21831. 17s. 9d., so attached to their hands and custody, and that the said serjeant-at-mace should then return and certify to the same court what he should do by virtue of such precept; and the day was effect of the said judgment thereof given; and wh said precept was afterwards, and within the juri tion of the said court, to wit, on the day and ye aforesaid, delivered to the said serjeant-at-mace, to executed in due form of law; and thereupon the no defendants afterwards, and after the commencer of this action, and whilst the said precept was in t hands of the said serjeant-at-mace for the purpose being executed, to wit, on the day and year last afor said, being then within the city of London and th |