(1.) In this case it appears that one Elie Goldberg was the defendant with two others in a suit brought by the mortgagee upon a covenant in an English mortgage for Rs. 15,000 plus interest. In appears that a certain colliery property was the mortgaged subject and the claimant sued for a personal judgment for Rs. 29,508-8-0. The suit was filed a few days ago, namely, on 13 August 1928. On 14 August, the plaintiff applied for the arrest of the defendant, Elie Goldberg, under Order 38, Rule 1, on the ground that he was about to leave the jurisdiction, with intent to delay the plaintiff or to avoid the process of the Court and to obstruct and defeat the execution of any decree that might be passed against him.
(2.) Now the plaintiff got an order ex parte in the form of a warrant directed to the Sheriff and commanding him: to demand and receive from Elie Goldberg a sum of Rs. 10,000 as sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff's claim in this suit and, unless the said sum of Rs. 10,000 is forthwith delivered to him by or on behalf of the said defendant Elie Goldberg, to take the said defendant, Elio Goldberg, into custody and to bring him, before this Court, in order that he may show cause why he should not furnish security to the extent of Rs. 10,000 for his personal appearance before this Court whenever called upon to do so until the said suit shall be fully and finally disposed of and until satisfaction of any decree that may be passed against him in this suit.
(3.) Now it will be observed that the first portion of that warrant is merely to say that if, when the Sheriff arrests the man, the man hands over Rs. 10,000 that is to be deemed to be payment of the claim and the Sheriff is not to arrest the defendant Elie Goldberg, and that is what is intended by Rule 1, Order 38. In this case, when the Sheriff arrested the man, he did not pay Rs. 10,000 and the Sheriff did not get Rs. 10,000. Consequently the Sheriff arrested him. The second part of this warrant, which is a notice to Belie Goldberg, says in effect that the Sheriff is to take him in custody and bring him before the Court in order that he may show cause why he should not furnish security to the extent of Rs. 10,000 for his personal appearance. I leave aside the other words, which merely indicate that the appearance is to be appearance at any stage of the suit up to the full satisfaction of the claim in execution.