Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/307

296 

1788.

Sergeant and J.B. M‘Kean,  for the Plaintiff, ftated, that the cafes of privilege in England,  were limitted to an attendance upon Parliament, or upon Courts, as a party, juror, witnefs, or officer ; and that all the authorities which had been cited for the Defendants, were fully comprehended within thefe bounds. They admitted that reafonable privilege had, likewife, been allowed in Pennʃylvania; but denied that, in either country, the doctrine had been extended to the object of the prefent rule. For, they infifted, that the Sheriƒƒ's  attendance upon the Executive Council, was voluntary, in order to folicit an appointment, which, notwithfanding his being on the return, the Council might, at pleafure, grant, or refufe. Neither was he bound to give fecurity ‘till he was appointed ; and, even then, it was no neceffary to be given in the city of Philadelphia.– With refpect to the Lieutenant of the county, nothing, they faid, could be more evident, than that his vifit to Philadelphia was on act of fupererogation, to perform what no required him to do, and what might as well have been performed through the agency of a Poft-rifer.

If, indeed, the attendance of the Sheriƒƒ, or of the Lieutenant of the county had been required by the Executive Council; or, if they had been brought before that Board by any legal procefs; they might then have claimed the advantage of the general rule of the privilege. But there can be no pretence in reafon, or law, to exempt from an arreft,either a man, who voluntarily comes to folicit an office ; or one, who undertakes a journey merely to oblige his neighbors by bringing them their commiffions.

At an adjourned fittings, held on the 6th of September, delivered the clear, and unanimous opinion of, that the Defendants were not protected from arrefts, for any caufe that had been fhewn. He obferved, that they had not been required by the Executive Council to attend them, but evidently came to Philadelphia on their own private  bufinefs; and that it was the duty of the Court to be careful not to extend the doctrine of privilege to the injury of honeft creditors.

The rule difcharged. 

HE Defendant was one of the members from Bedford county, in the State convention, which affembled at Philadelphia, to take into confideration the adoption, or rejection, of the conftitution propofed for the Government of the United States,  by the Fœderal Convention on the 17th of September 1787. During his attendance upon this duty, he was ferved with a Summons at the fuit of the Plaintff ; and Sergeant obtained a rule to fhew caufe, why the Procefs fhould not