Resler V. Shehee. 113 of Virginia. By the act of congress of 3d March, 1801, supplementary to the act concerning the district of Columbia, sec. 3. it is enacted, "that the circuit court for the county of Alexandria shall possess and exercise the same powers and jurisdiction, civil and criminal, as is now possessed and exercised by the district courts of Virginia." ap *The act of assembly of Virginia, respecting the district courts of that state, s. 28. (Rev. Code, p. 85.) provides, that "every judgment entered in the office. against a defendant and bail, or against a defendant and sheriff, shall be set aside, if the defendant, at the succeeding court, shall be allowed to pear without bail, put in good bail, being ruled so to do, or surrender himself in custody, and shall plead to issue immediately." And in sec. 42. of the same act, p. 87. it is further provided, "that all judg ments by default for want of an appearance or special bail, or pleas as aforesaid, and nonsuits or dismissions obtained in the office, and not set aside on some day of the next succeeding district court, shall be entered by the clerk as of the last day of the term; which judgment shall be final in actions of debt founded on any specialty, bill, or note in writing, ascertaining the demand, unless the plaintiff shall choose in any such case to have a writ of inquiry of damages; and in all other cases the damages shall be ascertained by a jury, to be empannelled and sworn to inquire thereof, as is herein after directed." 6 any Upon an equitable construction of these sections of the act, the practice in Virginia has been to permit the defendant to come in at a subsequent term and avail himself of such defence as he has, in the same manner as if he had pleaded it at the particular term mentioned. This question has been discussed in Virginia, and received the construction for which I contend. The case of Downman v. Downman's Executors, 1 Wash. 26. was a plea of tender after office judgment confirmed. In p. 27. the court say, "these words,. plead to issue immediately,' are the same as were used in the old act of 1753, for establishing the general court; under which the practice of that court was very liberal, in allowing a defendant to plead that which did not make an issue, but required subsequent pleadings, provided the real justice of the case, and not intended delay, was thereby promoted. This is no case more proper for special pleading than one in To show that this plea is a good justification, I refer to the case of Coxe v. Wirrall, Cro. Jac. 193. where a similar plea was adjudged good upon de murrer. It is a common practice, even in the English courts, to permit the general issue to be withdrawn, and a special plea filed, where it is not done, with an intent of delay. Jefferys v. Walter, 1 Wilson, 177.; and 254. Taylor v. Foddrell. But the case of Downman v. Downman's Executors, before cited, seems conclusive upon this question. CHASE. J. Have the rules of the Virginia courts been adopted in the circuit court? Resler V. Shehee. *114 & Resler V. Shehee. * 115 Lee. I conceive the circuit court of Alexandria to be in the same situation as the district court at Rich mond. And, as I understand the act of congress, they are obliged to adopt the practice of the courts of Virginia, except where the circuit court has actually made a different rule. *Simms, for defendant in error. I will not deny that the courts of Virginia have gone the length stated in Washington's Reports. They have used their discretion, and have considered whether the plea offered tends to the justice of the cause, or whether it is intended only for delay. In this case, the time having passed when the defendant could file his plea as a matter of right, it was entirely in the discretion of the court to admit or reject it. It is certainly not a sufficient justification for the defendant to say that the magistrate committed the plaintiff; for that neither destroys the evidence of express malice, nor shows probable cause for the prosecution. The magistrate might have committed upon the evidence of the defendant Resler himself; so that this plea would most probably have been overruled upon demurrer, and at any rate would have created delay; for in a matter of so much consequence, it cannot be presumed that the counsel for the plaintiff could at once determine whether to demur or to join issue. The defendant was not precluded from making a proper defence. He might have shown probable cause on the general issue, for the gist of the action is the want of probable cause; and the court had the power of instructing the jury whether such cause was shown or not. Bull. N. P. 14. It is said that the plea was offered in a reasonable time. It cannot surely be said that three days in the hurry of the court is a reasonable time to answer such a plea-so say the courts of Virginia. This plea amounts to the general issue, and therefore ought not to have been received. The justice of the case did not require it, and it is only to promote justice that the courts have ever deviated from the pre cise terms of the law.. "Mason, on the same side. Admitting for a moment that the practice of the Virginia courts was binding upon the circuit court, yet the court have only exercised the same discretion which a Virginia court might have exercised. There is a particular time allowed for special pleading; after that time, the admission of a plea is discretionary with the court. The case in Washington's Reports is clear to show that it is altogether a matter of discretion. The court might have refused to receive any plea at all; for the right of the defendant to set aside the office judgment, by pleading to issue, is confined to the court next succeeding the office judgment." But the defendant had every advantage under the general issue, which he could have had under his plea. It is extremely clear that the plaintiff must show malice, and the defendant matter of justification. The rules of practice in the courts of Virginia, are confined to Virginia. The courts of the United States are not bound by them. They have power to make their own rules. Lee, in reply. Our complaint is, that the inferior court has not exercised its discretion in the manner it ought to do. I use the word discretion differently from Mr. Mason. The excercise of such discretion is subject to the control of this court. If we look to the decisions of the courts in Virginia, we find that they have soundly exercised their discretionary power. The practice has constantly been to let in the parties notwithstanding any laches. Was it proper in the court to say, that although we have a right to suffer you to bring the question of probable cause before the court, and to take it from the jury, and although you wish so to do, yet we will not permit you, but will compel you to go before the jury; where facts disclosed, not pertinent to the issue, might make an improper impression? CUSHING, J. Do you admit that the defendant might have given in evidence, under the general issue, the facts stated in the plea offered? Resler V. Shehee. * 116 Resler V. Shehee. * 117 Lee. It is sufficient for us if it was a matter of doubt. In such a case, a cautious practitioner will always take the safest method, and plead the facts specially. *There is no doubt but the court had a right to make rules of practice for itself. But not having made such a rule in this case, its discretion ought to have been guided by the practice of the Virginia courts. We therefore hope that this court will correct the indiscreet exercise of the power of the court below in this case. The Court. It is true that the courts in Virginia have been very liberal in admitting any plea, at the next term after an office judgment, which was necessary to bring forward the substantial merits of the case, whether it was strictly an issuable plea, or not. But at a subsequent term, it is a matter of mere discretion with the court whether they will admit any special plea at all. In the present case the facts stated in the plea offered, might have been given in evidence on the general issue; the court exercised their discretion soundly in rejecting the plea. Judgment affirmed. A sheriff TURNER v. FENDALL. THIS was a writ of error to reverse a judgment of makes the the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting at fi. fa at the money upon a suit of A. v. B. and afterwards a fi. fa. against A. is put into his hands, he cannot levy it upon the money of A. made by the fi. fa. of A. v. B., for it does not become the goods and chattels of A. until it is paid over to him; and by the command of the writ the she riff is in strictness bound to bring the money into court, there to be paid to the plaintiff. On a motion, in Virginia, against a sheriff for not paying over moneys by him collected on execution, it is not necessary that the judgment against the sheriff should be rendered at the term next succeeding that to which the execution has been returned. Proceedings before magistrates in cases of insolvent debtors are matters in pais, and may be proved by parol testimony. It is not error in the court below to reject, as incompetent, admissible testimony tend ing to prove a fact not relevant to the case before the court. Money may be taken in execution if in the possession of the defendant. |