Aldridge v Haines and Seven Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 1831 |
| Date | 09 May 1831 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 1190
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
1190 ALDRIDGE V. HAINES 2 B. & AD. 395. [395] aldeidge against haines and seven others. Monday, May 9th, 1831. In an action of trespass against commissioners of a Court of Bequests and their officers for taking goods, the defendants justified, alleging, that at the Court holden by them pursuant to statute, the plaintiff committed a contempt, and thereupon the defendants who were commissioners imposed a fine upon him, and issued their warrant to the other defendant, the officer, to levy it, by virtue of which he seized, &c. It was proved that the commissioners were acting in their jurisdiction, that a conviction and warrant produced were signed by them, and that the other defendant was their officer; and in proof of the contempt and proceedings thereupon, the conviction of the plaintiff, and the warrant to levy the fine were put in : Held, that although the pleas stated as a substantive fact that the plaintiff had been guilty of a contempt, and not merely that he had been convicted, the fact of contempt could not be enquired into; for the allegation of it might be rejected as unnecessary, and the conviction and warrant were pleaded, and these, appearing to have issued from a competent jurisdiction, were conclusive of the facts stated in them. The Act empowered the commissioners to fine any person who should contemptuously and wilfully insult or abuse them. One of the pleas stated, that the plaintiff contemptuously, &c. insulted the commissioners by accusing them of injustice ; the conviction stated this in similar terms, but added, " and by calling Mr. G. S., who was then attending in the Court, an infamous liar :" Held, no variance, as the latter statement might be rejected. The statute provided, that it should be lawful for the serjeant, by order of the Court, to apprehend the person guilty of contempt, and that the Court should then proceed to fine, &e. The conviction merely stated that the plaintiff was apprehended; but it appearing by the narrative that the apprehension must have been in presence of the commissioners, who afterwards proceeded to fine: Held, that their order might be inferred. The Court was, by the statute, to be holden only on Tuesdays. The warrant was headed as if made at a Court holden on that day, when the fine was in fact imposed ; but it purported to be signed and sealed on the next day: Held, no objection. Trespass for seizing, taking away, and converting the plaintiff's goods. Pleas,- first, not guilty; secondly, that seven of the defendants (not including Haines) were commissioners for the recovery of small debts within the hundreds of Westbury, Warminster, Heytesbury, and JDamerham South, in the county of Wilts, acting under a Statute of 48 G. 3; and that they, being such commissioners, and having taken the oath prescribed by the Act, and being duly qualified under the same, before the times when, &c. to wit, on the 23d of September 1828, duly met and held the said Court of Bequests at Warminster, for the purposes of the Act; at which Court the plaintift, being present, did then and there, before the times when, &c. in open Court contemptuously and wilfully insult the said seven defendants, being such commissioners, and sitting in open [396] Court as aforesaid, by accusing them of injustice, hatred, malice, and corruption in their proceedings in the said Court; and thereupon the defendant Haines, being serjeant of the Court, duly appointed under the Act, by order of the other defendants, being such commissioners, and holding such Court as aforesaid, took the plaintiff into custody; and the other defendants, being, &c. and holding such Court, did then and there, from their own view and knowledge of what passed, examine into the said insult of the plaintiff, and after such examination thereof, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, at Warminster aforesaid, duly imposed a certain fine (to wit, of 101.) upon the plaintiff for his said offence, whereof he then and there had due notice, and was duly requested forthwith to pay such fine; that the plaintiff did not pay the same, and thereupon the seven first-mentioned defendants, being commissioners, &c., on the day and year aforesaid, at Warminster, duly made and issued their warrant in writing under their hands and seals, directed to Haines, so being such serjeant, &c., and thereby ordered him to levy the fine, with costs, by distress and sale of the plaintiff's goods, rendering the overplus, if any, to him, and to make due return thereof at the then next Court to be holden at Warminster; that that the sessions had discharged the order of two justices; and Mr. Heywood obtained a rule nisi for affirming this last-mentioned order of sessions; which rule was afterwards made absolute, no cause being shewn. 2 B. fe AD. .397. ALDKIDGE V. HAINES 1191 the warrant afterwards, arid before the times when, &c. to wit, on the said 23d of September, at Warminster, was duly delivered by the said seven defendants to Haines, then being such Serjeant, to be executed; by virtue of which warrant he, being such Serjeant, seized and detained the goods as a distress for the fine. The third plea was similar, except in stating that the plaintiff insulted and abused J. B., one of the commissioners, by saying of him in open Court, that he came to [397] uphold the corruption and injustice there practised. The replication to the special pleas was de injuriS,. At the trial before Gaselee J., at the Wiltshire Spring Assizes, 1829, a verdict was found for the plaintiff against all the defendants, with 101. damages, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case :- The alleged acts of trespass were admitted at the trial; and in justification of them, the defendants' counsel produced from the Crown Office the following document, which had been returned to this Court in Michaelmas term 1828, in pursuance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Graham and Another, Assignees of John Barugh, a Bankrupt v Furber
...is not such as, if true, would be within the magistrate's jurisdiction, no finding of facts can alter it." See also Aldridge v. Haines, 2 B. & Ad. 395; Cave v. Mountain, 1 M. & G-. 262, 1 Scott, N. E. 132, Mould v. Williams, 5 Q. B. 469, 1 Dav. & M. 631, The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Hick......
-
Mason and Another, Administrators of Mary Wild, Deceased v Mitchell
...528). On this point the following authorities and statutes were referred to (b)' Rnttavn, v Kinnatrd (1 B. & B 432), Aldridge v. Haines (2 B. & Ad 395), 1 Smith's Lead. Cas. 658, note, 5th ed. , 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 3 , Moore v Bownutker (7 Taunt. 97); 1 Wms. Saund. 92 b , note (/), 21 & ......
-
Carratt v Morley, Goodwin, Marshall, W. Rainey, Soulby, E. Rainey, Richardson, and Horn
...to be in conformity with the judgment, since the Court was to judge of them; Britain- v. Kinnaml (1 Br. & B. 432), Aldridge v. Haines (2 B. & Ad. 395). Goulburn Serjt. and Whitehurst, in support of the rule obtained on behalf of the plaintiff, and against the rule obtained on behalf of Horn......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Hickling
...did in Brittain v. Kinnaird (1 Brod. & B. 432). The fact, if stated in their order, would not have been travers-able; Aldridge v. Raines (2 B. & Ad. 395). The objection now taken, if valid, would have been available in Hasten v. Carew (3 B. & C. 649), where the record of proceedings by just......