sometimes worked even
greater injustice--as might have been expected; and of this, the
following is an example:--

About the year eighteen hundred and twenty-six, there lived, in a
certain part of the west, a man named Smedley, who, so far as the
collection of debts was concerned, was entirely "law-proof." He seemed
to have a constitutional indisposition to paying anything he owed: and,
though there were sundry executions in the hands of officers against
him--and though he even seemed thrifty enough in his pecuniary
affairs--no property could ever be found, upon which they could be
levied. There was, at the same time, a constable in the neighborhood, a
man named White, who was celebrated, in those days of difficult
collections, for the shrewdness and success of his official exploits;
and the justice upon whom he usually attended, was equally remarkable,
for the high hand with which he carried his authority. But, though two
executions were placed in the hands of the former, upon judgments on the
docket of the latter, months passed away, without anything being
realized from the impervious defendant, Smedley.

Whenever the constable found him in possession of property, and made a
levy, it was proven to belong to some one else; and the only result of
his indefatigable efforts, was the additions of heavy costs to the
already hopeless demand.

At length, however, White learned that Smedley had _traded horses_ with
a man named Wyatt, and he straightway posted off to consult the
magistrate. Between them, the plan of operations was agreed upon. White
levied first upon the horse then in the possession of Smedley, taking
him under _one_ of the two writs: he then levied _the other_ execution
upon the horse which Smedley had traded to Wyatt. The latter,
apprehending the loss of his property, claimed the first horse--that
which he had traded to Smedley. But, upon the "trial of the right of
property," the justice decided that the horse was found in the
possession of Smedley, and was, therefore, subject to levy and sale. He
was accordingly sold, and the first judgment was satisfied. Wyatt then
claimed the _second_ horse--that which he had received from Smedley.
But, upon a similar "trial"--after severely reprimanding Wyatt for
claiming _both_ horses, when, on his own showing, he never owned but
_one_--the justice decided that the property in dispute had been in the
possession of Smedley at the rendition of the judgment, and was
th