7J1 



VTROPINE. 



ATTACHMENT, FOREIGN. 



722 



of the affection. It can be cured only by the application of the appro- 

 priate remedy to the morbid state of the organ or organs on which it 

 depends. The detection of this state is sometimes difficult, and the 

 removal of it when discovered often still more difficult. But when 

 it depends only on functional derangement, or on such a kind and 

 degree of organic disease as admits of cure, the physician who succeeds 

 in discovering the cause will easily and surely remove the malady 

 [HYPERTROPHY.] 



ATROPINE, ^ropm, Datimne (C^H^NO,,). A vegetable alkaloid 

 discovered by Geiger and Hess iu the juice of the deadly nightshade 

 (Atropa Belladonna), and in which the well-known poisonous qualities of 

 the plant reside. It is also found in the seeds of stramonium (Datura 

 Stramonium), and may be obtained by treating the decoction of either 

 plant with magnesia, and digesting the precipitate in alcohol, which 

 dissolves the alkali in question. Brandes procured it also by adding 

 sulphuric acid to the decoction, filtering the solution, super-saturating 

 with potash, filtering again, dissolving the precipitate in boiling water, 

 and crystallising the solution. 



The crystals are long, transparent, colourless, brilliant needles. 

 Atropine is nearly insoluble in cold water, moderately soluble in ether, 

 and easily so in alcohol. It forms with acids peculiar salts, several of 

 which readily crystallise. During the evaporation of a salt of atropine, 

 o great a quantity of it is volatilised, that the vapour occasions an 

 enlargement of the pupils of the eyes of those exposed to its influence, 

 which continues for several hours. Brandes supposes that the atropine 

 exists, in part at least, in the state of malate in the deadly nightshade. 

 When atropine is heated in a solution of potash or soda, ammonia is 

 abundantly evolved. 



ATTACHMENT. An attachment is a kind of criminal process 

 which Courts of Record are authorised to issue summarily upon a 

 mere suggestion, or upon the personal knowledge of the judges, with- 

 out indictment or information. This process is properly granted in 

 caaes of contempts, which all court* of record may, in the absence of 

 specific regulation by statute, punish in a summary manner, according 

 to their discretion. Thus, if a contempt be done in the presence of 

 the court by a breach of the peace, an open defiance of its authority, or 

 an interruption of its proceedings, the offender may at once be attached 

 and committed, and afterwards punished to a reasonable extent at the 

 discretion of the presiding judges. On the other hand, if it be sug- 

 gested by a third person upon oath that one not present in court has 

 committed an action which amounts to a contempt, the court will 

 make a rule upon the offender to show causa why an attachment 

 should not issue against him ; or in flagrant and urgent cases, where an 

 immediate remedy is necessary, will grant an attachment on the first 

 complaint without any previous rule to show cause. In modern prac- 

 tice, attachments are chiefly employed in cases of constructive con- 

 tempts, such as abuses of the administration of justice by magistrates 

 or judges of inferior courts, for corruption or injustice by officers and 

 ministers of the courts in refusing to execute lawful process, for doing 

 it oppressively, corruptly, or extortionately, or for making false returns. 

 Hal-practices in these respects, which bring discredit on the adminis- 

 tration of justice, are for that reason construed to be contempt of the 

 courts, and punishable as such by attachment. Upon a similar prin- 

 ciple, attorneys, who are officers of the different courts in which they 

 are admitted, may be punished by this summary mode of proceeding 

 for any dishonest practice, for unjust or fraudulent conduct towards 

 their clients, or for not obeying the orders of the court in delivering 

 up papers, paying over money, tc. It is said by Hawkins (' Pleas of 

 the Crown,' book ii. c. 22, s. 30), that barristers, " though not officers 

 of any court, yet inasmuch as they have a special privilege to practise 

 the law, and their misbehaviour tends to bring a disgrace upon the law 

 itself, are punishable by attachment for any foul practice, as other 

 ministers of justice are." Jurors also may be liable to attachment for 

 constructive contempts in their ministerial capacity ; for instance, for 

 making default when lawfully summoned, for refusing to be sworn or 

 to give any verdict, or for receiving a bribe or instructions from either 

 of the parties in a suit to be tried by them. In early periods of the 

 history of our law, jurors were sometimes attached for acts done in 

 their deliberative or judicial capacity, as for giving verdicts against 

 evidence or the direction of the court in matter of law. That giving a 

 false verdict should be considered a contempt of court was not so 

 unreasonable as it may at first appear to those acquainted only with 

 the province of juries at the present day. In ancient times the jury 

 were to all intents and purposes witnesses who were sworn to speak 

 the truth (terum dicere) ; and if they gave a wilfully false verdict upon 

 facts, they committed a similar kind of contempt to that of witnesses 

 committing manifest perjury at the present day. Hawkins gives it as 

 the inclination of his opinion, that a jury would be still liable to an 

 attachment for giving a verdict wilfully against the direction of the 

 court in pouit of law. The absence of an instance, however, in modern 

 times of such a proceeding would afford a strong argument against its 

 legality. Besides the contempts committed by parties and persons as 

 above noticed, there are instances which it would be endless to enu- 

 merate, in which all persons may become liable to attachment for 

 offences of this description. Thus, wilful perjury in the presence of 

 the court, disrespectful words or conduct to the presiding judge, coun 

 terfeiting writs, refusing to pay money or perform acts according to 

 the direction of an award entered into by rule of court, non-payment 



ARTS A.VD SCI. DIV. VOL. I. 



of costs taxed by the officer of the court in which a proceeding is 

 pending, are all instances of contempts which subject the persons who 

 commit them to the summary process of attachment. 



Attachment of Privilege was a process by which attorneys or other 

 officers, entitled to privilege in the courts to which they belong, might 

 formerly enforce the appearance of another person in their respective 

 courts to answer to an action, but this course of practice has been 

 abolished. 



ATTACHMENT, FOREIGN. This is a judicial proceeding, by 

 means of which a creditor may obtain the security of the goods or 

 other personal property of his debtor, in the hands of a third person, 

 for the purpose, in the first instance, of enforcing the appearance of the 

 debtor to answer to an action ; and afterwards, upon his continued 

 default, of obtaining the goods cr property absolutely in satisfaction of 

 the demand. The process in England is founded entirely upon local 

 customs, and is an exception to the general law of the laud, as it exists 

 only in London, Bristol, Exeter, Lancaster, and a few other to wns. Indeed, 

 the name of the process may serve to demonstrate its foreign origin, 

 as we find a similar mode of securing the payment of a debt by a pro- 

 ceeding against the debtor's goods in the hands of third persons, forms 

 under different names, a part of the municipal laws of Scotland, 

 Holland, and most European countries in which the civil law prevails. 

 In Scotland this proceeding is called arrestment. In France, the 

 process exists under the name of saisie-arrSt. (' Code de Procedure 

 Civile,' I., liv. 5, tit. 7.) 



The custom of foreign attachment in London differs in no material 

 respect from the same custom in other parts of England ; it is, however, 

 much more commonly resorted to in the Lord Mayor's court of London, 

 than in any other local courts. 



The creditor, who is the plaintiff in the action, makes, in the first 

 instance, an affidavit of his debt, which must have been contracted 

 within the city of London or its liberties, and be actually due. An 

 action is then commenced in the usual manner; the only parties 

 named in the first instance being the creditor as plaintiff, and the 

 debtor as defendant. A warrant then issues, or is supposed to issue, 

 to the officer of the court, requiring him to summon the defendant ; 

 upon this warrant the officer returns that the defendant " has nothing 

 within the city whereby he can be summoned, nor is to be found within 

 the same," and then the attachment may be made. This return of 

 won ett inventut to the process against the defendant is of the very 

 essence of the custom, and without it all the subsequent proceedings 

 on the attachment would be invalid ; in point of fact, however, where 

 an attachment is intended, the officer never attempts to summon the 

 defendant, or gives him any notice of the action, but merely makes his 

 return to the warrant as a matter of course. After this return, a 

 suggestion is made, or supposed to be made, by the plaintiff to the 

 court, that some third person within the city has goods of the 

 defendant's in his possession, or owes him debts, by which goods or 

 debts, the plaintiff requires that the defendant may be attached, until 

 he appears to answer to the action brought against him. The attach- 

 ment is then effected by a notice or warning served by the officer of 

 the court upon the third party, who is called the garnishee, from an 

 old French word gamier, or garnuer (to warn), from whence gamisle, 

 or vulgarly, garnishee (the person warned), informing him that the 

 goods, money, and effects of the defendant in his hands are attached to 

 answer the plaintiffs action, and that he (the garnishee) is not to part 

 with them without the leave of the court. After this warning, the 

 effect of which is to secure the property in the hands of the garnishee, 

 the process again returns, or in principle ought to return, to the 

 defendant, who must be publicly called and make default on four 

 successive court-days, before any further proceedings can be taken 

 against his goods. In practice, however, no process is served upon the 

 defendant either at this or any other stage of the proceeding ; nor is he 

 ever in fact called, notice of the action or the attachment being, 

 according to the present practice, never actually given to him. After 

 the four court-days have elapsed, the garnishee may be summoned to 

 show cause why judgment should not be given against him for the 

 ifoods or debt formerly attached in his hands. He then either appears 

 and pleads, or he makes default ; if he makes default, and the subject 

 of the attachment is money, or a debt ascertained, the judgment of the 

 court is final in the first instance, and execution may be issued at once 

 Eor the sum demanded. But where the subject of the attachment is 

 joods, a formal appraisement is made under a precept from the court 

 oy two freemen, sworn for the purpose ; and judgment given for the 

 foods so appraised. It sometimes happens that the garnishee has 

 removed the goods before appraisement ; in wlu'ch case the officer 

 returns the fact to the court, and a jury is empanelled to inquire and 

 assess their value ; and thereupon judgment and execution follow for 

 ;he sum so assessed. But before execution can in any case issue against 

 ;he garnishee, the plaintiff is required to enter into a recognisance with 

 two sureties, obliging himself to return the money or goods taken 

 under the attachment, if the defendant appears in court within a year 

 and a day, and disproves or avoids the debt, or shows that it did not 

 arise within the city. 



The above is the course of proceeding in the case of a judgment 

 by default. Instead of following this course, however, the garnishee, 

 who is commonly the banker, factor, or agent of the defendant, 

 usually appears and pleads. As matter of defence, he may deny that 



3 A 



