1850. GROOM v. WATTS. Messrs. Lazarus & Meyer. Francis gave her an order upon Wood for the sum of 270l., which was paid by Wood to the defendant. At this time, Francis was indebted to Messrs. Lazarus and Meyer in a larger amount, and they refused to receive the 270l., unless the whole of Francis's debt to them was paid; and the defendant kept the 2701. as an indemnity. On the 10th February, 1849, a fiat in bankruptcy issued against Francis on his own petition. The learned Judge told the jury that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, if Francis, knowing himself to be insolvent and contemplating bankruptcy, voluntarily gave the 270l. to the defendant, intending to favour him beyond other creditors. The jury having found a verdict for the plaintiffs for 2707. Gurney now moved for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection. The assignees are not entitled to recover. The defendant was not a creditor of the bankrupt, but a mere agent for the conveyance of the amount of the promissory note to the holders. No doubt the defendant had an interest in the note being paid, because his wife was a party to it, but the 270l. was not paid to him, but only placed in his hands for a particular purpose, and he could not apply it to any other. It is the same as if the bankrupt had given the money to his servant to take up the note with. [Pollock, C. B.-This is a totally different matter: the money was given to the defendant to protect him: a servant is a mere messenger. Alderson, B.-This was money had and received by the defendant, to the use of the assignees, inasmuch as it was money handed over by the bankrupt under such circumstances, that it was against law that he should retain it.] PER CURIAM (a).-There is no ground for a rule. Rule refused. (a) Pollock, C. B., Alderson, B., and Platt, B. 1849. Nov. 17. COBBETT v. Sir GEORGE GREY, Bart., and JOHN HUDSON. 1850. Jan. 26. a person from one part of a is prison to an- The Secre pass if a per moved under a TRESPASS RESPASS for assault and false imprisonment.-The The removal of declaration stated, that the defendants assaulted the plaintiff, and compelled him to go from and out of a certain room in the Queen's Prison, called No. 2, where he was of right lodged, to and along divers passages, &c., into another part of the prison more confined, dark, and insalubrious, being part of the said Queen's Prison limited by law as a prison or place for the separate confinement of debtors remanded by the Commissioners of the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, on the ground of fraud or for refusing to file a schedule of their property, and which debtors were there called Class No. 1; and that the defendants then imprisoned the plaintiff, and detained him as a prisoner of the said class in the said prison and said place, amongst the said first class of prisoners, separate and apart from his lawful fellows and friends, &c., whereby &c. the plaintiff was put to certain expenses to procure his release, &c. The defendants pleaded, first, not guilty "by statute," upon which issue was joined; secondly, that before and at the time when &c., the defendant Sir G. Grey general order made by him cation of the prisoners, which he had no legal authority to for the classifi make. Semble, that, under the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 22, prisoners in the Queen's Bench Prison, who had refused to file their schedules pursuant to an order of Debtors Court, the Insolvent were rightly placed in Class 1; but, assum ing such removal to be illegal, the stat. 11 & 12 Vict. c. 7, s. 3, affords protection against an action brought for the improper removal. In an action of trespass against two defendants, the plaintiff, in proof of the alleged acts of trespass, gave in evidence a return by one defendant to a writ of habeas corpus, in which that defendant stated, that he had committed the acts in question in obedience to certain orders made by his co-defendant. The defendants thereupon called in aid the evidence contained in that document in support of certain pleas of justification:-Held, that the return was evidence for the defendants in support of their pleas, and also against them in proof of the trespass. An attachment issued by the Court of Chancery against a person, for a contempt for non-payment of costs, is evidence in support of an averment in a plea that he was committed by reason of a contempt of the Court of Chancery. A plea in bar, justifying under a statute which affords a defence arising subsequently to the commencement of the action, is good after verdict. A Judge before whom the cause was tried may grant a certificate, under the 4 Ann. c. 16, s. 5, that the defendant had reasonable ground for pleading certain pleas, although the order be made ex parte, and after the taxation of costs has commenced. VOL. IV. BBB EXCH. 1850. COBBETT V. GREY. was one of her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, and that the defendant J. Hudson was keeper of the Queen's Prison; that, after the passing of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 22, and on &c., Sir G. Grey, then being one of her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, made certain rules for the government and regulation of the said Queen's Prison, having regard, amongst other things, to the classification of the prisoners therein, by virtue of and in obedience to the provisions of the said Act of Parliament; and then also subscribed a certificate that the same also were fit to be enforced, one of which said rules was as follows: that is to say: "The Keeper.-He shall place in Class 1 any debtor adjudged to be discharged at some future period on the ground of fraud, or any other debtor who does not, according to the Act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, file a schedule of his property;" and a certain other of which rules was as follows: that is to say, "Prisoners of the first class, debtors adjudged to be discharged at some future period, and debtors who do not, according to the Act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, file a schedule of their property-they shall be strictly confined to the divisions, rooms, and ward appropriated to them, and shall not be permitted to hold any communication with prisoners of any other class.”— The plea then proceeded to aver, that, after the passing of the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, and after it came into operation, and before the time when &c., the plaintiff was committed to a certain prison, to wit, her Majesty's Prison of the Fleet, by reason of a contempt of her Majesty's High Court of Chancery committed by the plaintiff, in not paying to one Jesse Oldfield the sum of 41l. 3s. 9d. costs, before then, to wit, on the day and year last aforesaid, ordered by the said Court of Chancery to be paid by him the said plaintiff to the said Jesse Oldfield, who was the plaintiff in a suit then depending in the said Court of Chancery, and in which the said William Cobbett the now plaintiff was defendant, and wherein the said Jesse Oldfield was plaintiff, and one B. James was defendant, by original and supplemental bills; that the plaintiff continued a prisoner in the said Fleet Prison until the 7th of November, 1842, when, in pursuance of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 22, he was duly transferred to the Queen's Prison; that, shortly before the time when &c., Jesse Oldfield obtained a vesting order against the plaintiff, under the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, and the plaintiff was ordered by the Insolvent Court to file his schedule as an insolvent within fourteen days; that he did not file such schedule in obedience to the said order; whereupon the defendant Hudson, so being the keeper of the said Queen's Prison as aforesaid, and well knowing the premises, and having regard and with a view to the classification of the prisoners in the said Queen's Prison, by virtue of and in obedience to the said rules so made by the said defendant Sir G. Grey as aforesaid, and in order to put the same in force, afterwards and just before the said time when &c., required the plaintiff to go and remove from and out of the said room No. 2, in the Queen's Prison, in which the plaintiff then was lodged, into a certain other part of the said prison appropriated by law, and by the said rules so made by the said defendant Sir G. Grey as aforesaid, to prisoners of the first class; that the plaintiff refused to go &c. ; whereupon the defendant J. Hudson molliter manus imposuit, as he lawfully might, for the purpose of removing the plaintiff, which are the said trespasses, &c.-Verification. To this plea the plaintiff replied, by admitting the respective characters of the defendants and the existence. of the rules, and that the plaintiff was required to remove from the said room, and his refusal to do so, and de injuriâ absque residuo causæ, concluding to the country; upon which replication issue was joined. The defendants pleaded, thirdly, a justification under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 7, s. 3, which enacts, "That this Act shall be and is hereby declared to be a full and complete 1850. COBBETT V. GREY. 1850. COBBETT v. GREY. indemnity and discharge to her Majesty's Secretary of State and to the keeper of the Queen's Prison respectively, and to all persons acting under his or their authority and control, for all things heretofore done or permitted to be done by the said Secretary of State, or by the said keeper or other persons, in regard to the classification of the prisoners in the Queen's Prison, and that the same shall not be questioned or impeached in any court of law or equity whatsoever, to the prejudice or detriment of the said Secretary of State or the keeper of the Queen's Prison, or any persons acting under his or their authority and control.” The plea then stated the making of the rules, &c., and averred that the several acts alleged to have been done were done by the defendants in regard to the classification of the prisoners in the Queen's Prison, and not otherwise. Verification. To this the plaintiff replied by traversing that the several acts were done in regard to the classification in the Queen's Prison, concluding to the country; upon which issue was joined. At the trial, before Pollock, C.B., at the London Sittings after last Hilary Term, the plaintiff gave in evidence a return to a writ of habeas corpus, which writ called upon the defendant Hudson to bring up the plaintiff, and to show cause why the plaintiff was taken and placed on the criminal side of the Queen's Bench Prison, being a prison for debtors remanded. The return stated, that the plaintiff was in the custody of the defendant Hudson, in obedience to a warrant of Lord Denman, C. J., directed to the warden of the Fleet Prison, under the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 22, s. 2: that, on the 11th of June, 1840, the plaintiff was brought to the bar of the Court of Exchequer, at Westminster, and by order of the Court committed to the said warden's custody, the said order having been made in a suit of J. Oldfield v. W. Cobbett and others. The order was set out, and it was then stated, that the plaintiff was discharged out |