AAA

383


r


j*  Linghams  had  a  judgment  against  the  consignor  and  Rsek.  CkamUr,
owner  of  the  goods;   that  on  that  judgment  they  issued
a  writ  of  testatum  Jieii  facias,  by  which  the  plaintiffs,  the
Sheriff,  were  commanded,  that  of  the  goods  of  the  con-
signor they  should  cause  to  be  levied  the  debt  and  damages4
due  under  the  judgment,  and  have  the  money,  so  levied,
before  our  lord  the  King  at  Westminster;  that  the  Sheriff
made  the  warrant  under  that  writ  to  the  plaintiffs,  the
officers;  that  they  entered  and  took  the  goods  in  exe-
cution ;  that  the  Sheriff  sold  them,  and  by  the  sale  levied
1,950/. ;  and  that  they  paid  the  1,950/.  to  Hopley  $  Ling-
hams  in  part  satisfaction  of  their  debt.     The  substance
of  the  replication  is,  although  it  is  true  there  was  such  a
judgment  as  is  pleaded,  although  a  writ  was  sued  out,  yet
the  plaintiffs  did  not  enter  the  ship  to  execute  that  writ :
they  did  not  proceed  to  sell  the  goods,  as  they  say  they
did;  they  did  not  levy  the  money  and  pay  it  to  the
defendants,   Hopley  %  Linghams,  but  the  goods  were
taken  under  another  authority,  and  for  a  purpose  differ-
ent  from  that  of  levying  the  money  due  to  the  judg-
ment creditors.     In  the  new  assignment  the  defendant
says,  that  the  plaintiffs,  for  other  purposes  than  those  men"
tioned  in  the  pleas,  entered  the  ship  and  took  the  goods.
