HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0055 and id is 1 raw text is: been committed in the neighbourhood. The defendant left the house on the 10th of
October, and sent a mulatto (199] girl, his servant, of the age of about thirteen or
fourteen, for the gun, desiring Leman to give it her, and to take the priming out.
Leman accordingly took out the priming, told the girl so, and delivered the gun to
her. She put it down in the kitchen, resting on the butt, and, soon afterwards
took it up again, and presented it, in play, at the plaintiff's son, a child between
eight and nine, saying she would shoot him, and drew the trigger. The gun went
off, and the consequences stated in the declaration ensued. There was a verdict for
the plaintiff, damages 1001.
The Attorney General moved for a new trial, on the ground that the defendant
had used every precaution which he could be expected to use on such an occasion,
and, therefore, was not chargeable with any culpable negligence.
Lord Ellenborough C.J. The defendant might and ought to have gone farther; it
was incumbent on him, who, by charging the gun, had made it capable of doing
mischief, to render it safe and innoxious. This might have been done by the dis-
charge or drawing of the contents; and though it was the defendant's intention to
prevent all mischief, and he expected that this would be effectuated by taking out
the priming, the event has unfortunately proved, that the order to Leman was not
sufficient; consequently, as by this want of care, the instrument was left in a state
capable of doing mischief, the law will hold the defendant responsible. It is a hard
case, undoubtedly ; but I think the action is maintainable.
[200] Bayley J. The gun ought to have been so left as to be out of all reach of
doing harm. The mere removal of the priming left the chance of some grains of
powder escaping through the touch-hole.
Per Curiam (a). Rule refused.
BACH against MEATS AND ANOTHER. Tuesday, June 18th, 1816. A creditor may,
with the assent of the debtor, take possession of the goods of his debtor, and
remove them from the premises for the purpose of satisfying a bon& fide debt,
without incurring the penalty of stat. 11 G. 2, c. 19, s. 3, against persons assisting
the tenant in removing his goods from the premises; although the creditor takes
possession knowing the debtor to be in distressed circumstances, and under an
apprehension that the landlord will distrain.
The plaintiff declared, that for two years before the 1st August, 1815, one Wm.
Graves was tenant to the plaintiff of a farm, &c. at a yearly rent; that on the 1st
August, 1815, two years' rent was in arrear; and that certain cattle of the said W.
Graves, being upon the premises, and liable to be taken by the plaintiff as a distress
for the said arrears of rent, the said W. G., on the 26th of January 1816, fraudulently
conveyed the said cattle from off the said premises, with intent to prevent the same
from being distrained by the plaintiff for the said arrears of rent; and that the
defendants wilfully and knowingly aided and assisted the said W. G. in such fraudulent
conveying away the said cattle, with intent to prevent the same from being distrained
by the plaintiff for said arrears of rent; and the plaintiff averred that the said cattle
were of the value of 3001. ; whereby and by force of the statute, an action bath accrued
to the plaintiff to demand of defendants 6001., to wit, double the value of the said
cattle. Second count, that defendants did aid and assist the said W. G. in concealing
the said cattle with intent, &c. Plea, nil debet.
[201] At the trial before Dallas J. at the last Herefordshire Assizes it was proved
that Graves was tenant, and the rent in arrear, as alleged in the declaration ; and it
was likewise proved that the defendant, Meats, was the brother-in-law, and was a
bonA fide creditor of Graves, and that, knowing Graves to be in distressed circum-
stances, and being apprehensive that his goods might be distrained, he went to the
premises on the evening of the 25th of January 1816, and made a seizure of a number
of the cattle, which, with the assistance of the other defendant, and the full knowledge
and consent of Graves, he drove from the premises early in the morning of the 26th.
The seizure made did not exceed in value the amount of Meats' demand. The plaintiff's
agent followed the seizure, and demanded possession, stating that he had been directed
by the plaintiff to distrain; Meats, however, refused to deliver up possession, but
(a) Abbott J. absent.
1024
BACH V. MEATS
5 M. & S. 199.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0055&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)