
    P. W. Yates against Van Rensselaer and Schemerhon.
    Where a plain-n defendant,who was in custody on a ca. sa. that yond'^the^iber" ties of the gaol, for his convertícnee, on the deminting that he h°'the'custody tlc'ca^sc^Jad not go beyond the limits prescribed by the plaintiff; and that if he did go plaintiff might Ihesame™.sa. or issue another mit him again to the custody of the sheriff until the debt and costs were defendant1 hara"!eementd by going beyond the hounds presci-ibed, the plaintiff issued a second ca. sa. defendant1 was custody^by'the motion’ oT the defendant, to he discharged, it was held, that the agreement of the plaintiff amounted to a permission to the defendant to go at large, and that he was not liable to be retaken on the ca. sa. but was entitled to his discharge; which was granted, however, on condition. that he should not bring an action for false imprisonment.
    RODMAN moved that the defendants in this cause be discharged from the ca. sa. on which they were .held in custody by the sheriff of Albany,
    
    The defendants were taken on the 13th day of March ^ast’ on a ca' sa' returnable on the first Monday of May. On giving security to the sheriff, according to the statute, 00 % J 0 ' they were permitted to go at large within the liberties of the gaol. On the 4th Mayy 1809, the plaintiff executed a writing, under his hand and seal, which he delivered to t*le sheriff, by which he consented and agreed that he would not prosecute the sheriff for an escape on the x r ca. sa. nor the bail given for the limits, provided, the , ** defendants shall continue in the custody of the sheriff, either within the- bounds of the limits of the liberties of Sa°l> or in the house and lot of Philip Wendell's heirs and devisees, in the first ward of the city of Albajm until the debt and costs shall be paid and satisfied. J t 1 And the defendants, by writing, under their hands and , . . . , _ . seals, reciting the said agreement, promised and agreed to and remain in the custody of the sheriff, as therein exPressed; and in case of an escape by them, or either Df them, they consented and agreed that they might be . ° J ° retaken, and again confined on the same ca. sa. or the . plaintiff, if he chose, might issue a new ca. sa. against them, and confine them until the debt and costs were paid- The defendants having gone beyond the limits so 8ranted to them, the sheriff, by the direction of the plaintiff, retook them, and kept them in custody, until r . r 1 they were discharged on a habeas corpus, by order of the recorder of Albany ; when the plaintiff issued another . . , r , , , . ca. sa. on the same judgment, returnable at this term, on which the sheriff took the defendants and detained them in his custody. .
    Hamilton, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The agreement of the plaintiff amounts to a permission to the defendants to go at large beyond the gaol liberties. Though we may say, in .the language of Justice Grose, (2 East, 244.) that the attempt on the part of the defendants to get discharged from the debt, is scandalous ; yet the rule of law is settled, and we grant the motion, on condition that the defendants stipulate not to bring an action for false imprisonment against the plaintiff, in consequence of arresting the defendants on the ca. sa. mentioned in the notice. (Barnes, 205. 3 East, 243.)

Rule granted.  