Ashcroft v Bourne, Porter, Brookes, Mercer, Lythgoe, and Billinge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 1832 |
| Date | 29 May 1832 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 250
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 209. Referred to, Foster v. Dodd, 1867, L. R. 3 Q. B. 76.
[684] ashcroft against bourne, porter, brookes, mercer, lythgoe, and BlLLlNGE. Tuesday, May 29th, 1832. Two magistrates having, at a landlord's request, given possession of a dwelling-house as deserted and unoccupied pursuant to the 11 G. 2, c. 19, s. 16, the Judges of Assize of the county, on appeal, made an order for the restitution of the farm to the tenant, with costs. The latter brought an action of trespass for fihe eviction, against the magistrates, the constable, and the landlord : Held, that the record of the proceeding before the magistrates was an answer to the action on behalf of all the defendants. [S. C. 1 L. J. K. B. 209. Referred to, Foster v. Dodd, 1867, L. R. 3 Q. B. 76.] Trespass for breaking and entering the plaintiff's dwelling-house, and evicting him. Plea, by all the defendants, the general issue; and further, by the first two, that they were justices of peace for the county of Lancaster, that the trespasses were committed by them in the execution of their office as such justices, and that they tendered 401., being sufficient amends. The plaintiff replied that that sum was not sufficient, upon which issue was joined. At the trial before Parke J., at the Summer Assizes for the county of Lancaster 1831, the following appeared to be the facts of the case. The plaintiff was tenant of a house and farm to the Rev. Mr. Brookes, one of the defendants. A year's rent being in arrear, and the goods being removed off the premises, Mr. Brookes applied to the first named two defendants to give him possession pursuant to the statute 11 G. 2, c. 19, s. 16. They went to view the premises on the 13th of October. The plaintiff was not there, but his wife and children were. There was no furniture in the house except three or four chairs, which were stated by the wife to belong to a neighbour. The magistrates then affixed a notice on the premises, that they would return to take a second view on the 28th of October. On that day they went to the premises with Brookes and the other defendants, two of whom were constables. The plaintiff was there, and the rent was demanded of him, but he did not pay it. The [685] magistrates then delivered possession to Mr. Brookes, and he and the other defendants turned the plaintiff and his family out of the premises. The plaintiff appealed to the Judges of Assize, and -they being of opinion that the premises had not been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King (Martin) v Mahony
...[1906] 2 K. B. 501. (9) 1 Q. B. 66. (10) 1 Br. & B. 432. (11) 8 E. & B., at p. 455. (12) 5 E. & B., at p. 56. (13) L. R. 2 Q. B. 114. (1) 3 B. & Ad. 684. (2) 15 Q. B. 671. (3) 7 E. & B., pp. 678, 679. (4) 7 E. & B. 757. (5) [1898] 1 Q. B., at p. 806. (6) 31 L. J. (N. S.), M. C. at (7) 5 E. ......
-
Ferguson v Kinnoull
...sessions in refusing to hear an appeal, or refusing (a) 1 Moo. & M. 52. (b) 6 B. & C. 611. (c) 7 B. & C. 394. (d) 3 Moo. & P. 242. (e) 3 B. & Ad. 684.to enforce a penalty. There is even a total absence of actions in cases where members of a court, not of record such, for instance, as a smal......
-
The Queen against Sewell
...complaint.] Here the indictment alleges a complaint, which ought to be proved. Hasten v. Carew (3 B. & C. 649), and Ashcro/t v. Bourne (3 B. & Ad. 684), which were cited on moving for the rule, shew only how far magistrates and those who set them in motion are protected, where there is juri......
-
Chaney against Payne
...to found the jurisdiction of the justice; Hasten v. Carew (3 B. & C. 649), Fawcett v. Fowlis (7 B. & C. 394), Ashaoft v. Bourne (3 B. & Ad. 684); and it is unexceptionable on the face of it, for it follows, in every respect, the form given by the statute, and contains the averments omitted ......