1788.
M‘KEAN, Chieƒ Justice.– Wood is a writer of great authority, and frequently cited with respect in Westminister-Hall. In the case before us, the execution has regularly issued, upon a judgment regularly obtained; and although we should certainly protect suitors, witnesses, and jurors, from an arrest on mesne process, during their attendance upon the Court, and for a reasonable time in coming and going, yet no cafe has been shewn, which will justify our interference, to discharge a man taken in execution on the ground of such a protection. It is,indeed, the privilege of the Court that is infringed ; and, it is discretionary, to grant it on some occasions, and to refuse it upon others.
by the court:–The prisoner must be remanded.[1]
RESPUBLICA verʃus SPARHAWK
T
HIS was an appeal from the Comptroller General's decifion, on the trial of which, by consent of the Attorney General, Sparhawk was considered as Plaintiff.
There was a verdict and judgment nise for the Commonwealth, when Ingersol obtained a rule to shew cause why a new trial should not be granted.
The case was this:–Congress, perceiving that it was the intention of the British army to possess themselves of Philadelphia, and being informed that considerable deposits of provisions &c. were made in the city, entered into a resolution on the 11th of April, 1777, that “a Committee should be appointed to examine into the truth of their information ; and, if it was found true, to take effectual measures, in conjunction with the Pennsylvania Board of War, to prevent such provisions from falling into the hands of the enemy.”
On the 13th of the fame month, the Pennsylvania Board of War, in aid of this resolution, addressed a circular letter to a number of citizens in each ward of the city, requesting them “ to obtain from every family a return of the provisions &c. then in possession, and the number of persons that composed the families respectively, in order that proper measures might be pursued for removing any unnecessary quantity of supplies to a place of security.” At the same time, it as mentioned, that, “ this proceeding was not intended to alter or divert the property in the articles removed; but, on the contrary, that the same should be at all times liable to the order of the respective owners, provided they were not exposed to be taken by the enemy.”
That no precaution might be omitted upon this occasion, the Pennsylvania's Board of War, on the succeeding day, desired General Schwyler to prevent the introduction of further supplies, and to adopt the most effectual means for preventing the departure of the waggons which were then in the city, and for procuring as many more as
would
- ↑ Determined at Sunbury. N.P. on the 11th of November, 1788, before the CHIEF JUSTICE, and Mr. Juʃtice. RUSH
