Boothman against The Earl of Surry
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1787 |
| Date | 12 June 1787 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 3
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
boothman against the earl of surry. Tuesday, June 12th, 1787. The bailiff of a liberty who has the return and execution of writs is liable to an action of debt for an escape, if he remove a prisoner taken in execution to the county gaol, situate out of the liberty, and there deliver him into the custody of the sheriff. Dougl. 42. This was an action of debt against the defendant, who was chief bailiff of the liberty of Hallamshire, for an escape. The declaration stated, that, in Easter term, in the 24th year of the reign of the present King, the plaintiff had recovered by the judgment of the Court of King's Bench 371. against one John Woolhouse; that on the 12th February, in the 25th year, &c. he sued out a capias ad satisfaciendum, directed to the Sheriff of Yorkshire, who made his mandate thereon to the defendant, requiring the defendant to arrest the said John Woolhouse, so that the sheriff might 4 BOOTHMAN V. THE EARL OF SURRY 2 T. B. 6. have his body at the return of the writ; upon which the defendant afterwards within his bailiwick took and arrested the said Woolhouse by his body in execution for the said debt, and had and detained him in his [6] custody in the gaol of the said chief bailiff in and for the said bailiwick in execution at the suit of the said plaintiff for the cause aforesaid, until the defendant, so being chief bailiff of the said liberty, afterwards, to wit, on, &c. without the licence or consent and against the will of the plaintiff, and without any legal warrant or authority, permitted and suffered the said Woolhouse, so being in his custody, to escape out of his custody, and to go at large wherever he would, the said plaintiff then or yet not being satisfied, &c. Pleas, 1st. Nil debet. Secondly, that true it is that he the defendant did take and arrest the said John Woolhouse by his body, and him for a short space of time had and detained in his custody in the gaol of him the said chief bailiff in and for the said bailiwick, at the suit of the plaintiff, by his body, as in the said declaration in that behalf mentioned : but the defendant further says, that always from the time of his having so taken and arrested the said Woolhouse as aforesaid, until the time of his removal and delivery into the custody of the Sheriff of Yorkshire, as is hereinafter mentioned, he the said defendant did safely and securely keep in his custody, within the liberty of Hallamshire aforsaid, the body of the said John Woolhouse. That as soon as conveniently might be after such taking and arresting the said John Wool-house as aforesaid, and before the return of the said writ of capias ad satisfaciendum in the said declaration mentioned, to wit, on the 26th day of April in the 25th year aforesaid, he the said defendant for the delivery of the body of the said John Wool-house from and out of the hands and custody of him the defendant into the hands and custody of the said Sheriff of Yorkshire, in order that the said sheriff might have the body of the said John Woolhouse before the said lord the King at Westminster at a day in the said writ of capias ad satisfaciendum in that behalf mentioned, according to the exigency of the said writ, he the defendant did, by the nearest and most convenient way, and with all reasonable expedition, necessarily remove and carry away the body of the said John Woolhouse from and out of the said liberty of Hallamshire, to and into the common gaol or prison of the Sheriff of Yorkshire, at the Castle of York, in the county of York, and the body of the said John Woolhouse he the defendant did then and there for the purpose aforesaid deliver from and out of his hands and custody into the hands and custody of the said Sheriff of Yorkshire, as he the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King against the Justices of Surrey
...[1906], 2 K. B. 466.] A rule having been obtained to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, 272 THE KING V. THE JUSTICES OF SURREY 2 T. R. 5M. directed to the justices of Surrey at their sessions, to compel them to hear and determine an appeal made by Hannah Pleck, who had been convict......
-
Ward v Audland, sued as Executor of Whitelock
...the assignor and all who claim under him, though it may convey no title to the grantee.] i'rom Twi/nf'n ca.se till E'lwardti v. Harben (2 T. R. 5S7), it was held that the absence of possession of chattels by a grantee after conveyance of them to him was no more than evidence of fraud. That ......