Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1496

chief justice aforesaid, did further order that the said Edward Aylett should give credit for all sums of money (if any) by him received, and refund what (if any thing) he had been overpaid, and upon payment of what (if any thing) should appear due, he should deliver up all deeds, papers, and writings in his custody or power belonging to the plaintiff. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, further present, that afterwards, to wit, on Wednesday next after fifteen days from Easter day, in the 24th year aforesaid, it was by the said court ordered, that the said order, so made by the said William Earl of Mansfield, the chief justice aforesaid, should be entered, and made a rule of the same court, to wit, at Westminster aforesaid, in the said county of Middlesex. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, further present, that such proceedings were thereupon afterwards had in the said court, in the said cause, that on Monday next after three weeks of the Holy Trinity, in the 24th year aforesaid, a certain rule was made by the said court, in the said cause, to wit, at Westminster aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, whereby it was ordered that the said Edward Aylett, upon notice of the said rule to be given to him, should, upon the morrow, shew cause why there should not issue a writ of attachment against him for his contempt in not paying obedience to the said rule made by the said court in the said cause, on Wednesday next, after fifteen days from Easter day, in the 24th year aforesaid; and why he should not pay to the said plaintiff, or Mr. Cater, his attorney, the several sums of £54, £42, £48, £8 6s. and £20 which had been received by him for the plaintiff's use. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, further present, that afterwards, to wit, on Wednesday next after three weeks of the Holy Trinity, in the 24th year aforesaid, a certain other rule was made by the said court, in the said cause, to wit, at Westminster aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, whereby it was ordered, that there should issue a writ of attachment against him the said Edward Aylett, for his contempt in not paying obedience to the said rule made in the said cause, on the said Wednesday next after fifteen days from Easter day aforesaid; and it was thereby further ordered, that the said Edward Aylett should forthwith pay to the said plaintiff, or Mr. Cater, his attorney, the several sums of £54, £42, £48, £8 6s. and £20 which he had received to the plaintiff's use. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, further present, [532] that afterwards, to wit, on the 30th day of June, in the 24th year aforesaid, a certain writ of our said lord the king, called an attachment, was, in pursuance of the said last-mentioned rule, duly issued forth in the said court of our said lord the king, before the king himself, (the same court then being at Westminster aforesaid, in the county aforesaid,) bearing teste at Westminster aforesaid, the said 30th day of June, in the 24th year aforesaid, directed to the sheriff of Middlesex; by which said writ it was commanded, that the said sheriff should not forbear, by reason of any liberty in his bailiwick, but that he should attach the said Edward Aylett, so that the said sheriff' might have him the said Edward Aylett before our said lord the king, at Westminster aforesaid, on Saturday next after the morrow of All Souls, to answer to our said lord the king for certain trespasses and contempts brought against him the said Edward Aylett, in the said court of our said lord the king, before the king himself; and that the said sheriff should have then there the said writ. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, further present, that the said writ afterwards, and before the return thereof, to wit, on the 5th day of July, in the 24th year aforesaid, at the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, in the county of Middlesex aforesaid, was delivered to William Pickett Esquire, and Thomas Skinner Esquire, then and still being sheriff of the county of Middlesex aforesaid, in form of law to be executed; and that the said William Pickett and Thomas Skinner, sheriff of the county aforesaid, by virtue of the said writ, afterwards and before the return of the said writ, to wit, on the said 5th day of July, in the 24th year aforesaid, in the parish aforesaid, in the said county of Middlesex, did duly make a certain warrant of him the said sheriff, under his seal, directed to Matthew Lenard, John Doe, and Richard Roe, his bailiffs of the hundred of Ossulston, in the said county; by which said warrant the said sheriff did command the said bailiffs, each and every of them, jointly and severally, that they, or any of them, should take the said Edward Aylett, if he should be found in the bailiwick of the said sheriff, and him the said Edward Aylett safely keep, so that the said sheriff might have the body of the said Edward Aylett before the lord the king at Westminster on Saturday next after the morrow of All Souls, to answer the lord the king