270 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



ten days. These defendants now- 

 had got the security for their 

 money for which they stipulated 

 — They had got a mortgage amply 

 suiScient to cover their demand 

 — they had got a bond, and war- 

 rant of attorney, all securing pay- 

 ment of the money in the month 

 of August, 1816, and before that 

 time they could not legally 

 demand it. It, however, so hap- 

 pened, for what reason he could 

 not tell, that in the month of 

 March, four months before the 

 money became due, they had the 

 hardihood to go into the Court of 

 Exchequer, to take out an extent 

 in aid against the plaintiff's pro- 

 perty, and to enable them to do 

 it, they swore that the plaintiff 

 was indebted to them in the sum 

 of 660/., by virtue of this very 

 note of hand which was merged 

 in the higher securities, and 

 which they had promised by their 

 agent, and ought to have deliver- 

 ed up to the plaintiff. An extent 

 in aid is soon procured. It issued 

 of course upon this affidavit, and 

 the whole property of the plain- 

 tiff was seized into the hands of 

 the Crown, and a total stop put 

 to the whole of his business. He, 

 however, contested their right to 

 issue it, and the cause was tried 

 in the Exchequer, and the Jury 

 found there was no debt due. 

 The cause was tried early in 

 July, but the plaintiff could not 

 get his judgment until November 

 1816; and therefore, though the 

 verdict went against them, they 

 persisted in holding possession of 

 the property, although any secu- 

 rity was offered them to let the 

 poor man into possession of his 



Eroperty, which they must then 

 now they wrongfully ■withheld. 

 But mark what their trick was — 



by keeping possession under the 

 extent, they prevented his rais- 

 ing money to pay them in Au- 

 gust, when their debt really 

 became due ; and on the 6th of 

 August they entered up their 

 judgment on the warrant of attor- 

 ney ; they then on that day 

 abandoned the extent, and the 

 very next, came in with their 

 common law execution, and in 

 four days after sold all his effects, 

 and literally turned his wife and 

 children without a bed into the 

 streets, and they were received 

 and protected in the house of the 

 Vicar of the parish, to whom the 

 honesty and good conduct of the 

 plaintiff was well known. This 

 was the injury for which the 

 plaintiff that day sought a recom- 

 pense, and he was sure the jury 

 would give a liberal one. 



The proceedings in the Court 

 of Exchequer were then put in, 

 by which it appeared, that, by 

 the finding of the jury, the extent 

 was set aside, on the ground that 

 no debt was due from the plaintiff 

 to defendants, at the time of suing 

 out the extent. 



The several securities were 

 next called for, Avhich the de- 

 fendant's Counsel objected to 

 produce, until evidence was 

 given of their execution. The 

 subscribing witness was called, 

 who proved the execution of the 

 deeds, at Dunmow, when they 

 were produced by Mr. Howard, 

 as defendants attorney. Being 

 asked whether Mr. Howard did 

 promise to give up the note, it 

 was objected by Mi-. Sergeant 

 Onslow, that Howard himself 

 ought to be called, and that no 

 evidence could be given of his 

 declarations. Messrs. Gurney 

 and Garwood, on the other side, 



afgued, 



