Blessley v Sloman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 1047
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. M. & H. 304; 7 L. J. Ex. 33; 1 Jur. 963.
blehsley v. sloman. Exch. of Pleas. 1837.-The defendant, a sheriff's officer, arrested the plaintiff at the suit both of A. and B. The plaintiff gave a bail-bond in the action at suit of A., and also signed a paper, purporting to be a bail-bond in the other action, which however was not a perfect instrument, but the defendant received from him the fees as upon a bail bond. It did not appear which was executed tirst, and the plaintiff' was immediately afterwards discharged:-Held, that the officer was not liable in trespass, although it appeared that, an hour before the plaintiffs discharge, L!. had informed the defendant that his debt was satisfied. [S. C. M. & H. 304 ; 7 L, J. Ex, 33 ; 1 Jur. 963.] Trespass for assault and false imprisonment. Pleas, first, not guilty ; secondly, a justification under a writ of capias against the plaintiff' at the suit of T. ill. Price. New [41] assignment to the latter plea, that the defendant assaulted and imprisoned the plaintiff on other and different occasions, and for other and different purposes, than in the plea alleged ; to which the defendant pleaded, first, uot guilty, and secondly, a justification under a writ of capias against the plaintiff'at the suit of C. Lewis. To the latter plea the plaintiff replied de injuria. At the trial before Lord Abinger, C. B., at the Middlesex Sittings after last term, it appeared that the defendant, who was an officer of the sheriff' of Middlesex, arrested the plaintiff at the suit both of 1'rice and of Lewis ; and the plaintiff' gave a regular bail-bond in the action at the suit of Price. The defendant also received from the plaintiff the fees as upon a bail-bond in the action at the suit of Lewis ; but the instrument signed by the plaintiff' was in fact not sealed, and the blanks were not filled up. The plaintiff' signed the one bail-bond immediately after the other, and was then liberated. The plaintiff's counsel proposed to call Lewis, to prove that an hour before the plaintiff' was discharged he, Lewis, had communicated to the defendant that his debt was paid ; the learned judge was however of opinion, that even if that were the case, as the defendant did not detain the plaintiff' longer than he had a right to do at 1048 TURNER V. CROSSLEV 3M. &W. 42. the suit of Price, he was not liable to an action of trespass, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Magnay, Rogers, and Walter against Burt
...detention is a distinct false imprisonment, as was said by Bayley J. in Martin v. Francis (1 Chitt. 241). In Blessley v. Sloman (3 M. & W. 40), it was taken for granted that trespass was the proper remedy for such a detainer. So trespass is the proper remedy against a magistrate for malicio......
-
Coppinger v Bradley
...Rob. 309. Simpson v. HillENR 1 Esp. 430. Arrowsmith v. Le Mesurier 2 New R. 211. Crowley v. ImpeyENR 2 Stark. 261. Blessley v. SlomanENR 3 Mees. & W. 40. Pococh v. Moore 1 Ry. & M. 321. Withers v. HenleyENR Cro. Jac. 379. Gyfford v. WoodgateENR 11 East, 297. Frost's case 5 Co. 89. Whalley v......
-
Watson v Bodell
...have applied to the commissioner to discharge him : Smith v. Er/ginttm (7 Ad. Si Ell. 167; '2 Nev. & P. 14;i). And in lUesxley v. Slowtm (3 M. & W. 40) it was held, that, if the plaintiff was detained no longer than the defendant, the officer, was justified in detaining him under a lawful w......