cuted. In the Queen's Bench, the writ is made out by one of the clerks at the crown office, anl signed there. At the return of the writ, call at the office of the coroner, &c. and if he have got the money from the sheriff, he will pay it to you; if not, rule him to return the writ; and if he do not return it, move for an attachment against him ; but if he have returned that he has taken the body of the sheriff, then move for a habeas corpus to bring in the body. In the Queen's Bench, these rules are obtained at the crown office. Upon some one of these proceedings, the money will be paid to you.

The sheriff's liability, upon a capias, is not restricted to the sum indorsed on the writ, but he is liable for the whole amount actually due, and costs, R. v. Sh. of London, 9 East, 316. Heppel v. King, 7 T. R. 370. Fould v. Macintosh, 1 H. Bl. 233, to the extent of the penalty in the bail bond. R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 3 East, 604. In an action against the acceptor of a bill of exchange, the sheriff, if in contempt, may stay the proceedings against him, upon payment of the debt and the costs in that action, even although an action against the drawer be also pending. Vaughan v. Harris, 3 Mees. & W. 542. Ball v. Blackwood, 6 Dowl. 589.

Attachment, when and on what terms set aside.] If any of the previous proceedings in the action, to compel the defendant or sheriff to put in and perfect bail, be irregular, the court will set aside the attachment for not bringing in the body. Thus, where the rule to bring in the body was sued out, before the time for putting in bail had expired, Rolfe v. Steele, 2 H. Bl. 276,—where although notice of exception was given, no exception was actually entered, Rogers v. Mapleback, 1 H. Bl. 106,-where notice of exception was given, but not in writing, Cohn v. Davies, 1 H. Bl. 80,-and where the notice of exception was not intituled in the cause, R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 1 Chit. 741,-where the order in vacation to bring in the body, was upon the sheriff, instead of the late sheriff, R. v. Sh. of Cornwall, 7 Dowl. 600,-in these cases the court set aside the attachment. So, where the plaintiff allowed an unreasonable time to elapse after the return of the writ, before he sued out the body rule, the court set aside an attachment obtained for not obeying the latter rule. R. v. Sh. of Surrey, 7 T. R. 452. And where the rule for the attachment for not bringing in the body was obtained on the 11th of February, but the attachment not sued out till the 3rd of May, and in the mean time (on the 19th of March) the defendant had become bankrupt, and the sheriff had lost his opportunity of paying the debt and proving for it on the estate: the court set aside the attachment. R. v. Sh. of Surrey, 9 East, 467. So, where the rule for the attachment was obtained on the 19th of November, and the attachment not sued out and served on the

sheriff until the 9th of March following, the court set aside the attachment. R. v. Perring, 3 B. & P. 151. But where the plaintiff forbore to enforce the attachment for ten days, at the instance of the sheriff's officer, the court refused to set aside the writ, although the indulgence was given without the consent of the sheriff. R. v. Sh. of London, 1 Taunt. 489. So where the plaintiff stayed the proceedings for a month, at the instance of the defendant and one of the bail, the court refused to set aside the attachment upon the application of the bail. R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 1 D. & R. 388. The court have also refused to set aside an attachment, merely on the ground of the defendant having died after the body rule expired, R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 3 T. R. 133, or of the defendant having escaped; Ibbotson v. Tindall, 1 Bing. 156; but they set aside the attachment, and with costs, where it appeared that the defendant had been rescued out of the custody of the sheriff, and the plaintiff had prevented his being retaken. R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 1 B. & A. 192. See also other cases mentioned, ante, p. 35.

The court will set aside a regular attachment for not returning the writ, upon payment of costs; see R. v. Sh. of Essex, 1 M. & W. 720; and they have done so, even where the sheriff had taken a bail bond with one surety only. R. v. Sh. of Surrey, 1 Gale, 319, 2 Cr. M. & R. 689. So, where an attachment issues for not returning a writ of execution, the court will generally set it aside, on payment of costs, if the creditor have not been damnified by the delay. R. v. Sh. of Essex, 8 Dowl. 5.

The court will also set aside a regular attachment for not bringing in the body, in ordinary cases, upon payment of costs merely. But before the application is made, bail must be put in and perfected, R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 2 Dowl. 116, or the defendant rendered; see R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 4 Dowl. 673. R. v. Sh. of Lincolnshire, 2 Cr. M. & R. 656; even where it appeared that the bail had justified, but the rule of allowance was not served, the court discharged the rule nisi with costs. R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 2 Dowl. 116. But the court will not entertain the application, if the sheriff have not taken a bail bond, whether the application be made on the part of the defendant, R. v. Sh. of London, 2 B. & A. 354; Turnbull v. Moreton, 1 Chit. 721, or of the sheriff, Burn v. Sh. of Middlesex, 2 Marsh. 261. Collins v. Snuggs, 6 Moore, 111. Vanderhaden v. Britten, 4 D. & R. 155, or if merely an undertaking have been given, instead of a bail bond, without the consent of the plaintiff. Fuller v. Prest, 7 T. R. 109. So, if a bail bond have been taken, but it be executed by one surety only, the court will not set aside the attachment upon the application of the sheriff or his officer; R. v. Sh. of London, 2 Bing. 227; but they will, at the instance of the bail, R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 2 Dowl. 140, or even at the instance of the

sheriff or his officer, where the attachment is merely for not returning the writ. R. v. Sh. of Surrey, 1 Gale, 319. Where the attachment is for not obeying a judge's order to bring in the body in vacation, rendering the defendant after the time limited by the order, although before the attachment is actually moved for, will not purge the contempt, or prevent the attachment from issuing; but the court in such a case will set aside the attachment upon payment of costs, R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 2 Dowl. 432, 2 Nev. & M. 674, or even without costs, if the plaintiff have been guilty of delay in applying for the attachment. R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 5 Dowl. 245.

The affidavit on which the motion is made, is the same as that adopted upon setting aside regular proceedings upon a bail bond; see post, title "Bail bond ;" except, that instead of stating that an assignment of the bail bond has been taken, you state that on last, an attachment issued out of this

for not

as this

honourable court, against the said sheriff of having obeyed the rule to bring in the body of deponent hath heard and verily believes." See as to the affidavits of merits, Pringle v. Marsack, 1 D. & R. 155. Bell v. Taylor, Chit. 572. R. v. Sh. of Lincolnshire, 4 Dowl. 455; as to an affidavit by the bail; R. v. Sh. of London, 4 Bing. 427. R. v. Sh. of Mid-llesex, 1 Chit. 347, 721, 722. R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 3 Dowl. 186. Call v. Thelwell, Id. 444, 443; or on behalf of the sheriff or his officer; R. v. Sh. of Surrey, 1 Cr. M. & R. 581; and see the rules of the Queen's Bench and Exchequer upon the subject, post, title " Bail bond." The affidavit must be intituled "The Queen v. The Sheriff of

-;" R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 7 T. R. 439. R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 5 B. & C. 389. R. v. Sh. of Middlesex, 2 Mees. & W. 107; and it is usual also to name the cause.

If the plaintiff have been prevented from entering his cause for trial, by the defendant not having perfected his bail in due time, the court, in staying proceedings against the sheriff, will order the attachment to stand as security, in precisely the same cases that they will order the bail bond to stand as a security, in staying proceedings upon a bail bond. See post, tit. "Bail bond;" and see R. v. Sh. of Essex, 2 Dowl. 648. Call v. Thelwell, 3 Dowl. 445, 443. Casley v. Binns, 2 Mees. & W. 285. Where the question is whether the attachment shall stand as a security or not, it is for the plaintiff to show by his affidavit the facts necessary to prove that he has lost a trial, such as the time of delivery of the declaration, &c. R. v. Sh. of Surrey, 5 Taunt. 606. Where the attachment was ordered to stand as a security in Michaelmas term, and the sheriff, who had previous notice of the attachment, applied in Hilary term to discharge that part of the rule which required the attachment to stand as a security, urging that he was no party to the rule the court held his application to be too late. Lee v. Cary, 1 Chit. 180.

So, if an attachment issue for not returning a ca. sa., fi. fa. venditioni exponas, &c., and no special damage have arisen from the delay, the court will in general set it aside upon payment of costs, and making the return, even although the attachment be regular. And therefore where an attachment issued against the sheriff, for not returning a writ of venditioni exponas, the court set it aside on payment of costs, and on paying to the plaintiff the balance in the sheriff's hands, after payment of previous executions, and the expenses, &c., such balance being all that the plaintiff was fairly entitled to. R. v. Sheriff of Herts, 9 Dowl. 916.

CHAPTER V.

Attornies.

SECTION I.

Articled clerks.

1. Binding and service.

In what cases.] No person shall act as an attorney, unless he have been admitted and enrolled as such (a); and no person shall be admitted or enrolled as an attorney, unless he shall

(a) By stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 2, no person shall act as an attorney or solicitor, or as such attorney or solicitor sue out any writ or process, or commence, carry on, solicit, or defend any action, suit, or other proceeding, in the name of any other person or in his own name, in Her Majesty's high court of Chancery, or courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer, or court of the duchy of Lancaster, or court of the duchy chamber of Lancaster at Westminster, or in any of the courts of the counties palatine of Lancaster and Durham, or in the court of bankruptcy, or in the court for the relief of insolvent debtors, or in any county court, or in any court of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or in any other court of law or equity in that part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland called England and Wales, or act as an attorney or solicitor in any cause, matter, or suit, civil or criminal, to be heard,

tried, or determined before any justice of assize, of oyer and terminer, or gaol delivery, or at any general or quarter sessions of the peace for any county, riding, division, liberty, city, borough, or place, or before any justice or justices, or before any commis. sioners of Her Majesty's revenue,-unless such person shall have been, previously to the passing of this act, admitted and enrolled and otherwise duly qualified to act as an attorney or solicitor under or by virtue of the laws now in force, or unless such person shall, after the passing of this act, be admitted and enrolled and otherwise duly qualified to act as an attorney or solicitor, pursuant to the directions and regulations of this act, and unless such person shall continue to be so duly qualified and on the roll at the time of his acting in the capacity of an attorney or solicitor as aforesaid. 6 & 7 V. c. 73, s. 2.

have been bound to serve as a clerk to a practising attorney for five years, and duly served that time (b), or three years if he have had a degree of bachelor of arts or bachelor of laws at one of the Universities (c).

Who may take.] Every practising attorney may take clerks (d); provided he be not himself a clerk to some other attorney (e). And each attorney may have two at the same time