Berry against Adamson, Gent

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date22 May 1827
Date22 May 1827
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 546

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

Berry against Adamson
Gent.

berry against adamson, gent. Tuesday, May 22d, 1827. Where a sheriffs officer, to whom a warrant upon a writ against A. was delivered, sent a message to A., and asked him to fix a time to call and give bail, and A. accordingly fixed a time, attended, and gave bail: Held, that this was not an arrest, and that an action for a malicious arrest would not lie against the party suing out the writ, although he had no cause of action. Case for maliciously, and without probable cause, arresting plaintiff for an alleged òdebt of 901., and causing him to be kept in prison until he gave bail for his appearance at the return of the writ/ Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Lord Tenterden C.J. at the Westminster sittings after last Michaelmas term, it appeared that the defendant, on the 29th of October 1825, issued an attachment of privilege against the present plaintiff, indorsed for bail for 901. and upwards. The officer to whom the warrant was delivered sent his man to Berry with a message, that he had a writ against him, and requested that he would fix a time for attending at his (the officer's) house, and giving a bail-bond. Berry accordingly fixed a time, attended with two other persons, and executed a bail-bond. The officer's man did not take the warrant with him when he went to the [529] plaintiffs house. The cause was afterwards referred, and an award made in favour of the defendant. For the defendant it was objected, that this proceeding did not constitute an arrest; and Arrowsmith v. Le Mesurier (2 N. R. 211), was cited, and upon the authority of that -case the Lord Chief Justice directed a nonsuit. In Hilary term a rule nisi for setting aside the nonsuit was obtained ; against which The Attorney-General and D. F. Jones shewed cause. It is quite clear that in this case there was no actual arrest. The messenger who informed the plaintiff that there was a writ against him did not take the warrant with him, and afterwards the plaintiff attended voluntarily at the time appointed by himself, and executed a bail-bond. But it is said that a man may be virtually arrested although the officer does not lay hands upon him. That is certainly true; for if an officer desires a man to stay in a room, or locks the door upon him, that in law constitutes an arrest; but there must be either a corporal touch, or a capacity in the officer to arrest, and submission by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • R (on the application of Jalloh (formerly Jollah)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 12 February 2020
    ...and the claimant went voluntarily with the constable to see the magistrate: the warrant was treated as a summons rather than an arrest. Berry v Adamson (1827) 6 B & C 528, 108 ER 546, was a fortiori: the officer merely sent his man with a message to the claimant that there was a writ and t......
  • The Queen (on the Application of Ibrahima Jollah) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 12 June 2018
    ...cases involve quite fine distinctions and, it has to be said, are sometimes not always altogether easy to reconcile. At all events, in Berry v Adamson (1827) 6 B & C 528, 108 ER 546 there was held to be no false imprisonment where the sheriff's agent had requested attendance on the sheriff......
  • Coppinger v Bradley
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 7 June 1842
    ...v. Smith 2 Moo. & Rob. 184. Russell v. CoraENRENR 6 Mod. 127; S. C. 1 Salk. 119. Reece v. Griffiths 5 Man. & Ry. 120. Berry v. AdamsonENR 6 B. & C. 528. Cash v. Trevor 3 Ir. Law Rep. 433. James v. AskewENR 8 Ad. & El. 351. Marshalsea case 10 Co. 369. Cameron v. LightfootUNK 2 Wm. Bl. 1190 B......
  • Brown v Chapman
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Common Pleas
    • 28 June 1848
    ...is not liable as a trespasser, although the particular case be one in which the magistrate had no authority to act. In Berry v. Adamson (6 B. & C. 528, 9 D. & E. 558), where a sheriffs officer, to whom a warrant upon a writ against A. was delivered, sent a message to A., and asked him to fi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT