The Gazette 1910-11

22 / 114

122 The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, QUNE, 1910
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 William tcher Moulton
and Farwell, )
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
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