to belong to him; and he prayed oyer of the laid writ and inquisition, which being by him heard and understood, complained that he had been greatly vexed and molested under colour of the premises; because
Protesting that the said writ and inquisition were respectively insufficient in law, where unto he had no occasion, nor was he bound by the law of the land, to answer: nevertheless,
For Plea as to the writ and inquisition, he saith, that before and at the time of issuing the same, the said J. S. was a person carrying on trade and commerce in copartnership, to wit, in copartnership with one T. F.
Protesting, that nothing was due from him, he further says, that if any thing was due from him to the said J. S. the same was due to J. S. and his copartner, and not to J. S. alone; but the said J. S. unjustly and to oppress the said defendant, did wrongfully cause the extent to issue against him; under colour that a large sum was due to J. S. alone, did wrongfully cause the said writ to issue, and the lands, &c. of the said defendant to be seized, and the defendant to be taken and detained in prison; without this, that the said defendant, on the day of issuing the said writ, was justly indebted unto the said J. 8. in 10,022l. or any part thereof, in manner and form in the said inquisition supposed; all which he was ready to verify; wherefore he prayed judgment, and that the hand of our lord the king should be removed from the possession of the said goods, &c. of the defendant.
Replication, 29th Jan. 1808.And as to the pleas of the said defendant pleaded in bar, Sir V. Gibbs, his majesty’s attorney-general, on behalf of his majesty,
Says, that by reason of anything in the defendant’s plea alleged, the hand of our lord the king should not be removed from the lands, &c. of the defendant, and that the defendant ought not to be restored to the possession thereof; because
Protesting that the plea of the defendant, and the matters therein contained, were wholly insufficient in law to remove the hand of our lord the king from the said lands, &c.; yet, for replication as to the plea of the defendant as to the said writ and inquisition,
Saith, that the said defendant was, on the day of issuing the same, and making the seizure aforesaid, indebted to the said J. S. in the said sum of 10,022l. and he prayed it might be enquired of by the country.
Joinder, 3d Feb. 1808.And the said defendant, as to the said plea of the said attorney-general, pleaded in reply to the plea of the defendant by him pleaded in bar, and whereof the said attorney-general prayed might be enquired of by the country, &c. saith,
That the said defendant doth the like.
From the evidence produced, the court was of opinion, that the fact of the debt being due to J. S. was clearly established: upon which the counsel for the defendant called upon the crown to prove the quantum of the debt; but it was contended, that it was not incumbent upon the crown in this case to do so; because,
1. The quantum of debt was admitted by the protestation.
2. The inducement to the traverse, asserting a partnership, and stating the debt, if due at all, was
No. I. Vol. I. E
