The Gazette 1910-11

QUNE, 1910

The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland,

122

levying an execution. In consequence of certain litigation in the Stroud County Court Mrs. Cratchley had obtained in the High Court a writ of prohibition against Mr. Clissold, the costs of which Mr. Clissold was ordered to pay. In these proceedings Mr. H. Powell Richards acted as Solicitor for Mrs. Cratchley, and Messrs. Walker and Rowe, London agents for Mr. J. Lapage Norris, of Stroud, were Solicitors for Mr. Clissold. The costs having been taxed at £27 12s. 4d., Mr. Richards, on December 15, 1908, wrote to Messrs. Walker and Rowe requesting pay ment of the taxed costs before 11 a.m. the next day. At about noon on December 16 Mr. Norris went to Mr. Richard's office at Stroud, and paid the £27 12s. 4di, on behalf of Mr. Clissold, to a clerk of Mr. Richards named Greening, who was in charge of the office, and took from him a receipt signed " H. Powell Richards, p.p. B. J. Greening." Mr. Richards was then in London, and Greening did not at once inform him of the receipt of the money, and on the same day Mr. Richards, having had no further com munication with Messrs. Walker and Rowe, sued out a writ oifi. fa. at 3.45 p.m., which was at once sent to the sheriff of Gloucester shire, and on December 17 the sheriff's officers, in pursuance of the writ, entered upon Mr. Clissold's farm and demanded £33 17s. 3d., and notwithstanding the pro duction by him of Greening's receipt, levied on his goods to the extent of £50. On the next day, December 18, in consequence of a telegram from Mr. Richards, the sheriff's officers withdrew. Mr. Clissold having brought this action, the County Court Judge found that the amount of the costs in question was paid three hours before the writ of fi. fa. was issued, and that Greening had'authority to receive it and to give a valid receipt for it. He also found that neither of the defendants had acted, maliciously; but he held that, as the execution was illegal, the defendants were liable, and he gave judgment for the plaintiff for £15. On appeal the Divisional Court gave judgment for the defendants on the ground that in the absence of malice no action would lie against either of them for issuing j the writ oi fi. fa. I The plaintiff appealed. I Lord Justice Vaughan Williams said that

1903, and Section 4 of the Irish Land Act, 1909. supplemental to the Regulations thereunder dated the 15th February, 1910. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Regulations of the 15th of February, 1910, it shall be lawful for the Estates Com missioners, if they think fit, to proceed with and accelerate the sanction and making of the advance of the purchase money of any estate being sold to the Estates Commissioners under Sections VI., VII. and VIII. of the Irish Land Act, 1903, out of its ordinary order of priority for special reasons to be recorded in writing and forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant before the said advance is sanctioned, and the said advance shall not be made out of its order of priority without the approval of the Lord Lieutenant. Recent Decisions affecting Solicitors. (Notes of decisions, iv/iether hi reported or un- reported cases, of interest to Solicitors, are in- viled from Members,) COURT OF APPEAL (ENGLAND). (Before Vaughan Williams, Fletcher Moulton and Farwell, L.JJ.) Clissold v. Cratchley and Another. April 14, 1910.— Execution—Writ of fi. fa. issued after payment of debt—Seizure by Sheriff—Liability of Solicitor—Trespass. When the total amount of a judgment debt has been paid the judgment ceases to be of any force or effect. Execution levied there under is, therefore, a trespass, and an action will lie in respect thereof. Decision of the Divisional Court reversed. This was an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Divisional Court (Mr. Justice Darling and Mr. Justice Phillimore) on the hearing of an appeal from the Stroud County Court. The action was brought by Mr. Clissold, a farmer living at Stroud, in Gloucestershire, against Mrs. Cratchley, who also resided in Gloucestershire, and Mr. H. Powell Richards, her Solicitor, for £30 damage for improperly levying an execution under a writ oi fi. fa., or in the alternative for damages for tiespass by the defendants or their agents entering the plaintiff's premises and improperly