
    Robert B. Caverly vs. William C. Gray.
    in an action by the assignee of an insolvent debtor against an officer to recover the value of property attached and sold by him on mesne process against the debtor, the defendant, after proving a demand upon him for the property by a mortgagee thereof, may give in evidence a writ subsequently sued out against him by the mortgagee containing a bill of particulars of the property, for the purpose of showing that the mortgagee was still insisting on his rights.
    Action of contract by the assignee in insolvency of Cyras Pierce and Charles E. Pierce, to recover of a deputy sheriff the money received from the sale of perishable property attached as theirs on a writ in favor of one Heathwood, who recovered judgment after the commencement of proceedings in insolvency. Answer, that the money belonged to the Merrimack River Lumber Company, mortgagees of the property.
    At the trial in the court of common pleas, the defendant, after giving evidence of the title of the mortgagees, and of a demand in writing upon him, and of á notice to foreclose the mortgage, offered in evidence an original writ, sued out against him by the mortgagees a few days after the notice to foreclose, and duly entered in court, annexed to which was a bill of particulars of all the property attached and sold by the defendant.
    The plaintiff objected to this as irrelevant and inadmissible. But Sanger, J. overruled the objection, and admitted it as evidence “ that the mortgagees were still insisting upon their rights, but not as evidence as to the property in dispute.”
    The other questions raised at the trial were either decided in other cases at this term, or rendered immaterial by a general verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.
    
      R. B. Caverly, pro se.
    
    
      B. F. Butler, for the defendant.
   Dewey, J.

For the limited purpose for which the original writ in favor of the Merrimack River Lumber Company, and the schedule annexed thereto, were admitted, there is no objection to their admission, unless on the ground of irrelevancy They certainly had no tendency to show any title in said com« pany, and were not admitted as evidence on that point.

Exceptions overruled.  