Page:The English Reports v77 1907.pdf/421

is not sufficient in law to bar the said Robert Calvin from having an answer to his aforesaid writ: therefore it is considered by the Court of the lord the now King here, that the aforesaid Richard Smith and Nicholas Smith to the writ of the said Robert do further answer.

Bulwer of Dalling in Norfolk, brought an action on his case against George Smith, and declared that one Henry Heydon, Esq. did recover 201. &c. in the Common Pleas against the plaintiff, and after judgment, and before execution, the said Henry Heydon died, and afterwards the said defendant knowing thereof, at W. in the county of Norfolk to outlaw the plaintiff upon the said judgment in the name of Henry Heydon malitiosè et deceptivè machinatus est, in performance of which the defendant, Trin. 23 Eliz. at Westminster in Middlesex, purchased a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum, in the name of the said Henry, upon the said judgment, directed to the Sheriff's of London, who by the procurement of the defendant returned non est inventus; whereupon the defendant purchased a writ of exigent in the name of the said Henry, which writ the said sheriff by the procurement of the said defendant returned, that at several Hustings the said now plaintiff had been demanded, et ad Hustingum ad communibus placitis tent' in Guildhaldâ civitatis præd' die Lun' prox' post Festum Apostol. Simonis et Jud', anno supradict' præd' the now plaintiff, quint' eractus fuit, &c., et ideo ipse the plaintiff utlagatus fuit: and afterwards Pasch. 24 El. the defendant purchased out of the said Common Pleas a writ of capias utlagatum, in the name of the said Henry, directed to the Sheriff of Norfolk, to arrest his body, &c. which writ did mention that the said now plaintiff was outlawed die Lun' prox' ante Festum Apostolorum Simonis et Jud', &c. And the said writ the defendant at W. aforesaid in the said county of Norfolk, did deliver to one Robert Godfrey then deputy to the sheriff of the said county, to the intent that he should execute the said writ, the which Robert by force of the said writ took, and arrested the said now plaintiff, and did imprison him by the space of two months, until the now plaintiff purchased his charter of pardon, by reason of which outlawry he forfeited all his goods and chattels and upon this declaration the defendant did demur in law; and the principal cause of the demurrer was because this action, by the pretence of the defendant, [1 b] ought to have been brought in Middlesex where the wrong began, for there (as it was said) the defendant took out as well the cap' ad satisfac' as the exigent and the cap' utlagatum also. And although the cap' utlagat' was executed in Norfolk, yet the action ought to he brought where the wrong began; as in the case of conspiracy in 42 E. 3. 14 a. and divers other cases also were put; also by the outlawry which was in London all his goods and chattels were forfeited where it is more reason to bring the action than in Norfolk. But it was answered and resolved, that the (a) action was well brought in Norfolk;^[1] for it