
    Isaac F. Thompson versus James Smiley.
    In an action against a receipter for the valne of goods attached on mesne process, he cannot defend on the ground that, in the return of the officer, the property is not described with sufficient particularity, — the description being— “ a lot of millinery goods and merchandize.”
    Nor is it a ground for defence, that the clerk did not insert in the execution the correct day of the month on which judgment was rendered, and also misdated it, if the precept be afterwards corrected by order of Court, it being competent for the Court to direct the amendment, even after the return day of the execution.
    The party, whoso goods were attached, having testified for the receipter, that they were of less value than the amount of the judgment, the plaintiff, on cross-examination, was permitted to interrogate the witness if subsequent attachments of the goods were not made, by his own procurement, in favor of certain other creditors, whom he desired to secure.
    Exceptions from the ruling of Bice, J., at JSTisi Prius.
    
    Assumpsit on a receipt for a stock of millinery goods attached on a writ in a suit of Palmer & ais. v. Weston & The officer, in his return, described the property attached as "a lot of millinery goods and merchandize.”
    The bill of exceptions sets forth, that the plaintiff introduced a copy of the writ, Palmer v. Weston & als., dated June 25th, 1858, returnable to the Supreme Judicial Court, to be held at Portland on the 1st Tuesday of October, 1858, and the officer’s return thereon, dated June 25th, 1858, a copy of the record of the judgment at the October term, 1858, in said case, and the execution issued thereon, dated Nov. 30, 1858. It was proved that when the execution was put into the officer’s hands, and when a demand was made on the receipter, (Dec. 14, 1858,) the execution bore date November 26th, 1858, and the judgment on which it was issued was recited therein to have been rendered, November 23d, 1858, and that the date of said execution had been since changed to November 30, and the date of judgment therein recited had been changed to November 29, 1858.
    The defendant’s counsel moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the officer’s return on said writ was too vague and uncertain, to prove an attachment of the property for which the receipt was given, but the presiding Judge refused to order a nonsuit and ruled that said return was sufficient to show an attachment of the goods.
    Defendant introduced the deposition of Laura S. Weston to prove, among other things, the value of the goods. Defendant’s counsel objected to several cross-interrogatories by plaintiff, on the ground of competency, and not to the form thereof, which were objected to at the taking of the deposition. Plaintiff claimed torread them with the answers, to contradict the witness in her estimate of the value of the goods attached, and the presiding Judge admitted them for that purpose. The cross-interrogatories and answers are as follows: —
    " After the goods were attached, did you not procure two other attachments of the same stock to be made; if so, in whose favor and the amount of their claims ?
    " Ans. — One was in favor of Nason & Hamlin for about $26, the other, my help, for about $25. I applied to the attorney to make them. Did not pay their demands from the proceeds of goods sold after attachment, but from proceeds of bills previously sold.
    " If the value of the stock was as small as you estimate it, and Palmer’s claim was $1250, why did you procure others to be secured by attachment oí the stock ?
    " Ans. — I was advised to do it. My help was uneasy and wished to be sure of their pay. It was done in the hurry of the moment.”
    Jabez S. Currier, called by defendant, testified, among other things, "that he had been a deputy sheriff for several years; assisted the plaintiff in taking an account of the goods; that a schedule was made of the goods in the store, taken at the cost prices, as given by Mi’s. Weston from the cost marks on the goods, and from her bills ; that, some two years before, he sold two stocks of goods at auction in Augusta, one was a stock of millinery goods, and the other was part millinery and part dry goods of other kinds; that he was a dealer in goods in Hallowell in 1858 and 1859, some silks and some ribbons.”
    Defendant’s counsel then asked the witness the following question: — "What, in your opinion, would the goods attached, of which you took an account, have been worth at auction on the 14th day of December, 1858 ?” which was objected to by plaintiff’s counsel, and excluded by the Court.
    Defendant’s counsel contended that no legal execution was issued on the judgment rendered and put into the hands of an officer, within thirty days from the rendition of said judgment, and that the attachment, if any was made, was dissolved.
    The plaintiff introduced a copy of the record of the order of the Court, made at the term holden in Cumberland county in January, 1861, on the application of the plaintiffs in the action against Weston & al., permitting the clerk to correct the errors in the record and execution; and also a copy of the record as corrected.
    The presiding Judge ruled that the evidence- was sufficient to show that a legal execution was issued within thirty days from the rendition of said judgment; and, if the jury were satisfied that the execution was put into the officer’s hands within thirty days from the rendition of judgment, that was sufficient on that point.
    The verdict was against the defendant.
    
      Vose & Vbse, for the plaintiff.
    
      Libbey and Titcomb, for the defendant.
   The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

ltiCB, J.

This is an action of assumpsit on a receipt given by the defendant, for a lot of millinery goods and merchandize, alleged to have boon attached by the plaintiff as a deputy sheriff, and which the defendant, in his receipt, promised to redeliver to said officer or his successor in office on demand, or pay the value thereof in money, &c.

The goods were not redelivered. This action was brought to recover their value in money.

The case comes before us on exceptions. The defendant contended that the officer’s return on the original writ, was too vague and uncertain to prove an attachment of the property for which the receipt was given, and moved for a non-suit on that ground. This motion was denied.

It was remarked by Shaw, C. J., in the case of Baxter v. Rice, 21 Pick., 197, in which the language of the officer’s return' was in substance very similar to that used by the officer in this case, that " it is highly important, upon grounds of public policy, that a good degree of exactness and particularity should be observed, in returns on mesne process, to show their identity, and thereby more definitely fix the rights and responsibilities of all parties in relation to them. But, from the nature of the subject, it is difficult to lay down a precise general rule.

Though that was a case in which the action was directly against the officer, the Court did not hold the return absolutely invalid, but allowed an amendment, by specifying in detail the articles attached.

But, in the case at bar, the question discussed in the case of Baxter v. Rice, does not arise. Here the action is iipon a receipt in which the defendant admits that the goods had been attached by the plaintiff, and that he received them from him with a promise to return them on demand. He is not in a condition to contest the validity ‘of the attachment, and therefore, as to him, it is sufficient, even if it should be held otherwise between other partiesa proposition, however, which we do not assert. In the language of the Court, in the case of Drew v. Livermore, 37 Maine, 266, "he voluntarily became the bailee, of the officer and cannot avoid his contract by showing informality or invalidity in the attachment, or 'judgment, so long at least as that judgment stands.”

There was no proposition to show that the attachment had been abandoned. And, even if there had been an abandonment proved, it would not have availed the defendant. If the attachment had failed, then the officer was under obligation to restore the goods to the original defendants, and was entitled to have them returned to him, from his bailee, for that purpose.

Nor was the attachment dissolved by reason of any amendment in the date of’the execution or judgment. On general principles, it is competent for a Court of record, and incident to its authority, to correct mistakes in its records which do not arise from the judicial action of the Court, but from the mistakes of its recording officer. And lapse of time will not divest the Court of its power to make such corrections. Lewis v. Ross, 37 Maine, 230; Commonwealth v. Weymouth, 2 Allen, 144.

The interrogatory propounded to the witness Currier, was properly excluded for two reasons : — First, the preliminary examination did not show him to have been an expert, or person of peculiar skill and experience in reference to the subject matter upon which he was interrogated, and he therefore was not entitled to give an opinion. And, in the second place, the question put to him was irrelevant. The issue was not, what the goods would have been worth on a particular day at auction, but what was their value at the time and place of delivery. 2 Greenl. Ev., § 261; Berry v. Dwinel, 44 Maine, 255.

.The defendant, in his receipt, promised to return the goods or pay their value in money, not the sum they would sell for at auction.

The interrogatories propounded to Mrs. Weston, one of the original defendants, and objected to by the defendant, wore properly admitted. This witness had testified in her examination in chief for the defendant, that the whole stock of goods, at the time of the attachment, was not worth more than §300 or §400.

The interrogatories and answers, on cross-examination, which were objected to, show that, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s debt, on which the goods had been attached, amounted to $1250, this witness caused subsequent attachments to be placed upon the same goods for the benefit of her help and other creditors. These acts of the witness, apparently so inconsistent with her testimony, as given in chief, had a direct tendency to impair her credit with the jury in reference to the question of value, which became material in establishing the amount of damage. On th’e cross-examination, it was not only competent testimony, but directly pertinent to the issue.

No error being perceived- in the rulings or directions of the Court, the exceptions must Toe overruled and judgment entered upon the .verdict.

Appleton, C. J., Cutting, Davis, Kent and Walton, JJ., concurred.  