Barnardiston king b BANGHAN against lother and other when a action of trespass  be bring for the take of good how far the defendant may be allow to prove a  title to those good under a execution notwithstanding he have plead the  general issue sit at guildhall in trespass bring against the defendant for  take away good the plaintiff prove his possession in they as trustee for one  Davis upon Barnardiston king b er p a writ of execution mark for against the  good of atchenson atchenson have confess a judgement for to Davis and a writ  of execution which be mark for come to be levy upon Atchensons good the that  of November last the sheriff bailiff upon the execution levy but S and return  this upon the writ as soon as this execution be so make a bill of sale be make  of the good to the plaintiff in trust for Davis but Atchensons wife continue  in possession of these good and carry on the business of the house her husband  be go off on the part of the defendant sergeant darnel at first only endeavour  to show that the plaintiff have not such a possession in these good by this  mean as to be able to maintain trespass and think he can not be allow to show  a title to they under another judgement and execution in as much as the  defendant have plead general not guilty but the chief justice say the  defendant may be admit to give this evidence upon this issue in as much as  this be only a dispute about the right of those good between two  judgmentcreditors though he do agree that if this action have be bring by  atchenson himself the defendant must have justify the take special upon this  the sergeant go into the other part of his evidence and show a judgement by  default obtain by Lother against atchenson and a writ of inquiry ascertain the  damage to S d and upon the d of December a execution be make upon the good in  the hand of the wife of atchenson Mr marsh by way of reply show that Davis  have at several time assist atchenson with sum of money that at the time of  the execution there be at least good fide due to Davis that atchenson have be  a abscond man for some time and that before and after the execution several  person have send good into the house upon the credit of Davis believe that  Atchensons wife act only as servant to he the chief justice in sum up the  evidence say that if any open agreement can have be prove at the time of the  first execution that Atchensons wife shall continue in the possession of the  good as servant to Davis to make a far improvement of they for his benefit he  shall have think the verdict ought to have be for the plaintiff but as no such  agreement be prove he think this transaction ought to be consider fraudulent  with regard to the defendant and therefore the jury shall find a verdict for  he which they accord do