Bridge v. M'Lane
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
This was an action of debt upon a bond for the liberty of the prison yard. Upon oyer of the bond and the condition, the defendants plead in bar that M’Lane continued a true prisoner, &c., until the 7th day of October, A. D. 1803, when he was lawfully discharged by Arthur Lithgow, Esq., then and still being sheriff of the county, and keeper of the jail, by and with the consent of the said Bridge.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt upon a bond for the liberty of the prison yard. Upon oyer of the bond and the condition, the defendants plead in bar that M’Lane continued a true prisoner, &c., until the 7th day of October, A. D. 1803, when he was lawfully discharged by Arthur Lithgow, Esq., then and still being sheriff of the county, and keeper of the jail, by and with the consent of the said Bridge. There is a second plea to the same effect, omitting the consent of the creditor. 'The plaintiff replies to each plea that the defendant M’Lane was not lawfully discharged, as he has set forth in his…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
The motion for a new trial is grounded on the admission of Mr. Lithgou, the sheriff, as a witness to prove that the debtor in execution was discharged from prison by the paroi direction of the creditor, the plaintiff supposing that he, being sheriff, and keeper of the jail, was an incompetent witness.
That a creditor may by paroi authorize the jailer to discharge his debtor is not denied. For this point 3 Dyer, 275, a, is an express ■authority. But it is said that the sheriff is not a competent witness to prove this discharge in this action. We know of no rule or principle of law by…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Glasgow's Lessee v. Smith and BlackwellTennessee Superior Court for Law and Equity · 1805