COULSON against Graham. THE parties had entered into a submission to an arbitration, and an award was made against the defendant; but as he did not perform the same, the plaintiff made the submission a rule of Court, and then issued an attachment against him. The Master of the Crown Office reported that the defendant and Mr. Tomlinson, his attorney, were in contempt, and were now in Court to receive judgment. Taddy moved that the persons in contempt might be permitted to file affidavits, and be heard in their defence. The Attorney-General contended that could not be done. it Lord ELLEN BOROUGH C. J. The report of the Master must be taken as a conviction, and we cannot now receive affidavits in denial of the contempt, but we will in mitigation. The affidavit was then read, and parts of it were objected to, as being a denial. Tindal was then heard for the prosecutor, and cited Rex v. James Wheeler, 3 Burrows' Rep. 1256. Lord ELLENBOROUGH C. J. In that case the expressions of indignation were certainly not too strong. Fined 50l., and committed till paid. (a) See Tidd, 7th ed. 494, 5. REX against THESSIGER moved for a rule for an attach- The rule for an ment against the defendant, for nonpayment of attachment for money in pursuance of an allocatur, is only arule nisi when the allocatur is founded on an award (b). (6) For noupayment of costs on the Master's allocatur, the rule for an nonpayment of 1818. REX against money in pursuance of the master's allocatur. The allocatur was founded on an award, and the application was made for a rule absolute in the first instance. PER CURIAM. The motion is grounded on the Master's allocatur, but that allocatur was made in pursuance of an award. On referring to the Master, we find that a rule nisi only can in the first instance be obtained. Rule Nisi granted. attachment is in general absolute in the first instance. Tidd's Prac. 6th ed. 496. Thomson v. Billingsley. For nonpayment of money, generally, a rule to shew cause only is in the first instance granted: and even on the Master's allocatur, when that is founded on an award, the rule is only a nisi at first, ut supra. So in C. P., the rule for an attachment is, in general, only a rule to shew cause; but for nonpayment of costs on the Prothonotary's allocatur, the rule is absolute in the first instance. Chaunt v. Smart, 1 Boss & Pul. 477. The rule is there said to be, that where an excuse can be offered, an opportunity of shewing cause ought to be given. Attachment against sheriff not set aside on the ground of delay, unless there have been gross laches on the part of the plaintiff to the prejudice of the sheriff (a). REX against SHERIFFS OF LONDON, in a Cause of TU NURTON obtained a rule to shew cause why the attachment which had issued against the late sheriffs of London should not be set aside, on the ground of laches on the part of the plaintiff. The facts stated in the affidavit were, that the writ was returnable the first day of Michaelmas Term; that defendant was arrested, and a bail-bond taken; that (a) Where the rule for an attachment against the Sheriff for not bringing in the body was obtained on the 11th of February, and the attachment, which was returnable on the 4th of May, was not issued till the day before the return, and in the mean time the defendant became bankrupt on the 19th March, by which means the Sheriff lost his opportunity of proving it under the commission, the attachment was set aside, on the ground of laches. The King v. The Sheriff of Surrey, 9 East, 467. plaintiff did not rule the sheriffs to return the writ until the 26th of November, nor move for the attachment in question till the 29th of January. That in the interval the defendant and the bail had become insolvent. Marryat and Espinasse shewed cause, on an affidavit stating that the defendant was not arrested under the plaintiff's writ, but was in custody at the time when it was returnable, and the defendant was detained under it; that believing him to have been in the sheriff's custody, no rule to return the writ was given; that the sheriff took bail during the Term, and let the defendant go at large, and as soon as the plaintiff heard it, viz. on the 25th November, or the next day, the 26th, he gave a rule to return the writ, on the first day of Hilary Term a rule to bring in the body, which expired on the 28th, and the next day the attachment was obtained. It was admitted that the Court had, in some instances, relieved the sheriff, as in The King v. The Sheriff of Surrey, 7 Term Rep. 452. Rex v. Perring, 3 Bos. & Pul. 151. and The King v. Sheriff of London, 1 Taunton's Rep. 111: but in all those cases a long interval had elapsed. In the first of these cases the sheriff returned cepi corpus in Hilary Term, upon which the plaintiff proceeded no further until Michaelmas Term following, and then the bail having become insolvent, and the defendant absconded, this Court thought it unreasonable that the sheriff should be called upon to return the writ after such delay, and held that the attachment must be set aside. In the present case no such laches have intervened. The first rule was taken out the very Term the writ was returnable, and regularly followed up. They contended, therefore, that the rule ought to be discharged. The Court held that in this case there was not such HOBHOUSE against MIDDLEDITCH. HOBHOUSE against MIDDLEDITCH. laches as ought to prevent the plaintiff from proceeding against the sheriff, and therefore they could not accede to the application. The rule for setting aside the attachment was accordingly discharged. ATTORNEY. Exparte RowLE. ADAM moved to admit this gentleman an attorney of the Court, under the following circumstances. In the year 1814 he was articled for five an attorney of the Court, who until the autumn of -'s de -'s 1820. 3d Feb. A clerk, in or der to be ad mitted an at torucy, must actually serve five years untherefore, der articles; where a clerk had served part of his time with a a master who had left the country, and before his articles were as signed to an other master, an interval of ten months had elapsed, during which he was not serving un der any articles, but under years to Mr. T. was then in partnership with another gentleman. He continued to serve Mr. T1817, when that gentleman left the country, and had not since returned. In the mean time the partnership alluded to was dissolved. After Mr. Tparture, Mr. Rowle continued to serve in the office of the partner; and as soon as he discovered Mr. T residence abroad, he obtained that gentleman's consent to execute a written agreement, to assign over the articles to his partner; but before the agreement could be executed, ten months had elapsed, during which time Mr. Rowle continued to serve the partner under no articles. After the assignment of his articles, however, to the partner, he served out the remainder of the five years required by the statute 22 Geo. 2. c. 46. s. 15., and the question was, whether the meritorious service of Mr. Rowle with Mr. T— partner during the interval of the ten months, dis- new articles. pensed with the provision of the statute which requires that articled clerks must actually serve during the whole term of five years. He referred to ex parte Fletcher and Carter (a). (a) Sir W. Blk. 734. And see Exparte Blunt, id. 764; Carter's case, id. 957; and Exparte Hill, 7 T. R. 456. Tidd, 7th ed. 61. the assignment he served the remainder of the time specified; the Court would not al low him to be admitted until he had served out the ten months under |