Aaron v Alexander, Crowley, and Solomons
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 July 1811 |
| Date | 10 July 1811 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1297
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Wednesday, July 10, 1811. aaron v. alexander, crowley, and solomons (The keeper of a prison who receives and detains one apprehended and charged in his custody under a warrant, runs the risk of the warrant having been executed against the proper person ; and though acting bona fide, and without the means oi ascertaining the identity of the individual named in the warrant, he is liable to an action of trespass and false imprisonment, if, by the mistake of the officer to whom it was directed, it was executed against another. In trespass and false imprisonment against several, where one acquitted, certificate granted under 8 & 9 Will. III. c. 11, to deprive him of his costs ) Trespass and false imprisonment. Pleas, not guilty, and a justification under a warrant granted by Mr Justice Bayley, upon an indictment found at the Middlesex session* for an assault [36] It appeared that the plaintiff was not the person against whom the indictment was found , and that being apprehended through mistake, by Alexander and Crowley, they brought him to a watch-house kept by the defendant Solomons, who was acting as aconstable, where he was detained the whole night. The next morning Alexander and Crowley carried himbefore Mr. Justice Grose, but therebemga dispute as to his identity, the learned Judge refused to interfere, and he was some time afterwards set at liberty. It was first contended that Solomons, the constable and watch-house keeper, could not be liable in this action, as he was bound to receive the plaintiff when charged in his custody under the Judge's warrant. Lozd Ellenborough.-I think Solomons was in point of law a trespasser, although he had no means of knowing the person of the individual named in the warrant. However, as Solomons had not been concerned in those acts of which the plaintiff principally complained, Lord Ellenborough said, that the attention of the jury must either be confined to the imprisonment in the watch-house, or there must be a verdict in faveur of Solomons. The latter alternative being preferred, there was a verdict only against Alexander and Crowley. The plaintiff's counsel then applied for a certificate under 8 and 9 Will III. c...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson against Barker and Mitchell
...616. wrongful: but "if he goes one jot beyond his duty and assents to the trespass, that may be a different case." In Aaron \. Alexander (3 Camp. 35), where a wrong person was apprehended under a warrant and carried to the watch-house, the watch-house keeper, who received and detained him, ......
-
M'Combe v Gray
...Div. M'COMBE and GRAY. Withers v. HenleyENR Cro. Jac. 379. Aaron v. AlexanderENR 3 Camp. 35. Moone v. RoseELR L. R. 4 Q. B. 486; 17 W. R. 729. Re Thompson Estate, Nalty v. Aylett 43 L. J. Ch. 721. Greaves v. Keane 4 Ex. Div. 73; 27 W. R. 416. — Attachment —— Detention of prisoner after expi......