Boyce v Bayliffe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 1807 |
| Date | 11 December 1807 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 875
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
Referred to, Henry v. Goldney, 1846, 15 M. & W. 494.
[58] Friday, Dec. 11, 1807 boyce v bayliffe. (In an action for false imprisonment on board a ship, the plaintiff cannot recover as special damage the expense he incurred in leaving the ship, and taking his passage on board another, unless the injury continued to the moment of his transhipment. Quaere as to the authority of the captain of a merchantman, when a passenger refuses, on the approach of an enemy, to take the station assigned him. If while A is unlawfully imprisoned by B. C. commits an assault upon him, C. is guilty of the false imprisonment as well as B and if A. sues both separately, the pendency of one suit may be pleaded in abatement of the other ) [Eeferred to, Henry v. Goldney, 184G, 15 M. & W. 494.] (a) 1 T. R. 300; 7 T. R. 601 , 2 East, 458. * Vide CoUins v. Blantern, 2 Wils. 347, and the cases there cited ; Drage v. Ibberson, 2 Esp. Gas. 643. 876 BOYCE V. BAYIJFFE l CAMP. 5fc Assault and false imprisonment, on board the " Huddart" East Indiaman in a voyage from Bombay to London, pet quod the plaintiff was obliged to leave that ship and take his passage home on board another. It appeared in evidence, that the plaintiff was a passenger in the gunner's mess, and that the defendant was captain of the ship. On the evening of the 1 Ith of May 1805, near the Cape of Good Hope, two strange sail were descried in the offing, supposed to be enemies. The defendant immediately mustered all hands on deck, and assigned to every one his station. The plaintiff with the other passengers he ordered on the poop, where they were to fight with small arms. This order all readily obeyed, except the plaintiff, who conceiving he had been ill-used by the defendant some time before in being forbidden to walk on the poop, positively refused to go there, but offered to fight in any other part of the ship with his messmates. The defendant, for this contumacy, ordered him to be carried upon the poop, and there kept him in irons during the whole night. Next morning no enemy appeared ; and the '' Huddart " arrived safe at St. Helena, on the 17th of June. Here the plaintift quitted her, and gave 100 for his passage home on board another ship. [59] There being no justification on the record, and the imprisonment being clearly proved, the only question of law which arose in the cause was concerning the plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connelly v Wallace and Others
...712. (12) 8 A. & E. 449. (13) 21 Q. B. D. 362. (14) [1899] A. C. 439. (15) 1 Q. B. 18. (1) 11 C. B. 434. (2) 1 Q. B. 3. (3) 4 Ex. 729. (4) 1 Camp. 58. (5) [1915] 2 I. R. 169. (6) 4 L. R. Ir. 432. (7) [1930] 1 K. B. 243. (8) 20 Cox, C. C. 444. (1) [1895] 1 Ch. 37. (1) 4 Exch. 729. (1) 4 Q. B......
-
Noden against Johnson and Shores
...keep order for the safety of his ship, and has authority by law for that purpose; Abbott on Shipping, 176, 7, 8th ed., Boyce v. Buyliffe (1 Camp. 58, 60). The duty and right of the defendant Johnson as an officer were not sufficiently kept in view at the trial. Then as to the motion for a n......
-
Villasenor v The World of Residensea II Ltd
...to remove a passenger from a vessel in the interests of its safety is long standing: The Lima (1837) 166 ER 434; Boyce v Bayliffe (1807) 1 Camp 58; and see the Navigation Act 1912 (Cth), ss 279(1) and 281(b). I therefore took the view of the captain into account in reaching my conclusion as......
-
Sir G E Hodgkinson, Knt, v Fernie and Another
...law 1] Probably it would. This general subjection to the officer in command is further exemplified by the case of Boyce v. Bayliffe, 1 Campb. 58, which was an action by a passenger on board a vessel on a voyage to Bombay, against the captain, for assault and false imprisonment, where Lord E......