Ann Edmunds v Thomas Pinniger, Stephen Davies, and Stephen Rodbourn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 May 1845 |
| Date | 30 May 1845 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 115 E.R. 599
QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 14 L. J. Q. B. 273.
[558] ann edmunds against thomas pinnigeb, stephen davieh, and stephen RODBOURN. Friday, May 30th, 1845. Trespass for breaking and entering plaintiff's house. Plea, a justification by defendant, as acting in aid of a constable to whom a warrant had been issued to give possession to plaintiff's landlord, P., under stat. 1 & 2 Viet. c. 74. The plea stated the holding of plaintiff under P, and the terms, that the reversion in fee was in P., notice to quit, P.'s right to possession, plaintiff's refusal to quit, notice by P. of his intention to proceed under the Act, P.'s application to the justices, his complaint, plaintiff's non-appearance, P.'s proof to the justices of the matters of his notice and complaint, and of his right to possession ; and the issuing of the warrant by the justices. Replication, de injuria. Held good, on special demurrer; for that all the above facts necessary to constitute the jurisdiction might be traversed in that form, even assuming that sect. 5 does not protect persons other than peace officers and not named in the warrant, acting in aid of the constables, and would, therefore, not limit the effect of the traverse. As to which assumption, qutere. [S. C. 14 L. J. q. B. 273.] Trespass. The declaration charged that defendants, on 8th November 1843, and on other days, &c., with force and arms, &c., broke and entered a messuage, cottage, &c., of plaintiff, situate, &c., made a great noise, &c., and continued, &c.; and forced and broke to pieces one door of plaintiff, of and belonging to the messuage and cottage, and broke to pieces two locks, &c., of plaintiff, belonging to the door, wherewith the same was then fastened ; and, with force and arms, &c., ejected, expelled, &c. plaintiff and her family from the possession, use, &c. of the messuage and cottage, and continued them so ejected, &c., thence until the commencement of the suit; and also, with force and arms, &c., seized and took divers goods, to wit, &c., of plaintiff, then found and being in the said messuage, &e. : by means of which plaintiff and her family were greatly disturbed, &c. Plea 5, by Davis and Rodbourn, as to so much of the supposed trespasses as were committed on one of the days in the declaration in that behalf mentioned, to wit on (c)1 6 Car. & P. 179. See Regina v. Brmunlow, 11 A. & E. 119, where all the above mentioned cases were cited. (a) 2 East, R. 362, 365, 6, seventh point. (c)2 Lord Denman C.J. Patteson, Williams, and Coleridge Js. Reported by R. Hall, Esq. (d) See Regina v. Great Bolton, ante, p. 387, 400. 600 EDMUNDS V. PfNNIGER 7 Q. B. 559. the day and year in the declaration first mentioned, &c. : that, before the committing, &o., to wit [559] 1st January 1843, and from thence until and at the time of the f iring of the notice to quit hereinafter mentioned, plaintiff held the said messuage, o., aa tenant thereof to defendant T. Pinniger, from week to week, so long as plaintiff and T. P. should respectively please, at a certain rent of less than 201. a year, to wit 2s. a week, no fine having ever been reserved or made payable on or in respect of the said tenancy, the reversion in fee simple of and in the said demised premises, expectant on the determination of the said tenancy, during all the time aforesaid and still being in the said T. P. : and thereupon afterwards, and before the committing, &c., to wit 23d September 1843, all the term and interest of plaintiff in the said premises became and was duly determined by a legal notice to quit, theretofore, to wit 16th September 1843, given by T. P. to plaintiff, to wit a certain notice to quit, whereby the said T. P., a reasonable time before the time at which the plaintiff was required thereby to quit and deliver up possession as hereinafter mentioned, gave notice to and required the plaintiff at the expiration of the then next week of the said tenancy, to wit on the said 23d September 1843, to quit and deliver up the possession of the said premises: whereupon the said T. P., to wit 24th September 1843, became and was seized of the said premises in his demesne as of fee, and entitled to the possession thereof: yet plaintiff, from the said time of the determination of the said tenancy until and at the time of the committing, &c...
To continue reading
Request your trial