JB/058/222/001

Click Here To Edit

31 May 1805
Evidence

So late as the time of Henry the 6th, one way of making
business was this. To ground the process of outlawry against a Defendant
it was necessary in those days that the plaintiff should appear
in person before the Court: If then – if in those days, you having
happened to have are money when at your a quarrel with a man, you wished to convert him into an
Outlaw the mode was plain and easy. Consul
In the Kings Bench and in the Co of Westminster Hall there were then as there are now under
the Judges officers called Filazers and Exigenters offi To one
of those officers officers of one of those descriptions you paid a visit, and settled with him about
terms. It was then his business to contrive that there should be
a suit commenced in your name against the adversary and
that the adversary should hear nothing about the matter. The An
entry was thus made

When a man was converted into an Outlaw, the consequence was
that that⊞ ⊞ instead of going to his creditors, his property, being forfeited went invariably to the King; in effect to amongst
a set of placemen of different descriptions, a list of whom, to in
the amount of from 20 to 30, numbers difficult to reckon up, may be seen, as it stands on the footing of existing establishments, in a modern book
of practice.+ + Field. When a man was fixed upon as worth pulling tearing
to pieces by those vultures, the way was to enter his name upon
the list of defendants, at the suit of a sham fictitious nominal plaintiff; and
it then fell to the lot of a Filazer or Exigenter, (names still existing upon the judicial official list,) to enter upon
the Record the personal appearance of this man of Arms.
The process of Outlawry thereupon issued, and the fact taken that the
Outlaw had of his being such it was when property were to be (to being metamorphosis) was which the underlings officers into his house, and to his property.

This was practice, regularly practiced practice, not only both in the Common Pleas, and the
King's Bench. The Judges, to whom these of subordinate officers were subject must have been paid accomplices
in this fraud, or there could not have been any need to apply
to Parliament for a remedy. Parliament interfered, and to do what? To declare,
and that only for a time, that such practice should not be carried on go on in future.

Identifier: | JB/058/222/001 "JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 58.
Date_1	1805-05-31	Marginal Summary Numbering	6a
Box	058	Main Headings	evidence
Folio number	222	Info in main headings field	evidence
Image	001	Titles
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	1
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	e4
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	cw 1799
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer	c. abbit lees
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year	1799
Notes public		ID Number	18891
Box Contents