Page 85
Hillary Term, 37 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Westby versus Skinner and Catcher.
1. IN Debt by Titus Westby Plaintiff, against Thomas Skinner and John Chatcher late Sheriffs of London, Defendants. for 440 l. upon Nihil debet, pleaded, and a special Verdict found, the Case appeared to be this, * 1.1 to wit, One Anthony Bustard with others, were bound in a Recognizance in the nature of a Statute-staple of 440l. to the Plaintif wherupon the Plaintif sued Execution out of the Chancery against the said Anthony and the other that were bound with him for the Bodies, Goods, and Lands of the said Obligers which writ of Execution was delivered to the said Defendants the 8th day of * 1.2 September 30. Eliz. the Defendants then being Sheriffes of London and the said Anthony being then in Newgate in Execution in the custody of the said Defendants for 240l. at the suit of one Robert Deighton, and that afterwards, to wit, the 20th. day of October in the same yeer the said Defendants were discharged and removed from their said Offices, and Hugh Offeley, Richard Saltonstall were then made Sheriffes of London, and that the said Anthony being in Execution for the one and the other debt, the said Defendant the said 20th. day of October by Indenture delivered the said Anthony to the said new Sheriffes in Execution for the said debt of the said Robert Deighton not giving them any no••ice of the said Execution made for the Plaintiff, and suf∣fered the said Anthony to goe at large; And whether the Defendants shall be charged for this escape was the question.
And the escape was alledged by the Declaration to be suffered by the said Defendants the said 20. day of October, 30 Eliz. and it was moved by Tanfield, that the new Sheriffs ought to take notice of their Prisoners remaining in the Goal, at their coming into their Office, at their perill, and ought to en∣quire and search for the causes that then were in custody, and not to deliver them of their own head without due course of Law.
And he put the case, That if the old Sheriff had been dead, in the mean time before the new Sheriffs had been made, shal this be an excuse to the new She∣riffs that they had no notice for what cause this Anthony had been in Prison, if they suffer him to escape? And he said that it shall not, no more here; but per Curiam the new Sheriff shall not be charged with this Escape, as to the 440l. of which they had no notice; for if this case which was private in the know∣ledge of the ancient Sheriff only upon a Writ directed to them at the suite of any party, the new Sheriffs cannot by intendment have any knowledge, unlesse it be given to them by the old Sheriffs, to whom the Writ of Execu∣tion was directed and delivered.
And the case of one Dabridgecourt, who was Sheriff of Warwick, and had one in Execution whom he kept in a private Prison by himself, for all his Executions in the Town of Warwick; and when he was discharged of his Office, and a new Sheriff made, Dabridgecourt said to the new Sheriff, That he had such a one in Execution in his custody, and offered to the said Sheriff to put him in the Indenture amongst his other Prisoners delivered to the new Sheriff, but would h••ve had the said old Sheriff to have sent for the said new Sheriff to have taken him into his custody, but the new Sheriff refu∣sed to receive him, unlesse Dabridgecourt would deliver him into the common Gaol of the County, which was in the Town of Warwick, wherupon after∣wards the Prisoner escaped; And Dabridgecourt was charged with this Es∣cape, and not the new Sheriff, for he is not compellable to take the Priso∣ners of the delivery of the old Sheriff, but in the common Goal of the Coun∣ty, and the old Sheriff remains chargeable with the Prisoner, untill he be lawfully discharged of him, and if the Sheriff dies, the party shall be rather