Briggs against Sir Frederick Evelyn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 June 1792 |
| Date | 16 June 1792 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 126 E.R. 458
IN THE COURTS OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
briggs against sir frederick evelyn. Saturday, June 16th, 1792. The lord of a manor, who is also a justice of the peace, is intitled to a month's notice of an action brought against him for taking away a gun in the house of an unqualified person, by stat. 24 Geo. 2, c. 44, for it will be presumed that he acted as a justice (of. Trover for a. gun. The facts of the case were these; the Plaintiff, who was a game-keeper of the manor of Effingham in Surrey, sent a gun to a blacksmith, between (a)1 But in the latter part of the case the expression is, " Si f uit per sodein aventure de feu," &c. (if) See 4 Term Rep. B. R. 789, Elliot v. The Duke of Norfolk. (a)a [Vide Dickson v. Fisher, 4 Burr. 2269. Sex v. Leefe, 2 Cimpb. N. P. C. 139. Draper v. Qamtt, 2 B. & C. 2. Vide ante, vol. i. 49, 162.] (b) East, 9 Geo. 3, C. B. cited by Buller, J., in King v. Pippet, 1 Term Rep. B. R. 239. (a)3 [The protection of the statute 24 Geo. 2, c. 44, and of similar statutes, extends to all parsons intending to act within them. Therefore an excise officer, who, acting as such, receives money for duties under a statute which has been repealed, is entitled to notice under 23 Geo. 3, c. 70, s. 30, Ch'eenway v. Kurd, 4 T. R. 553. "It has been 28. Bt. 115. BRIGQS V. SIR FREDERICK EVELYN 459 the 20th and 30th of August 1791, to be mantled. The blacksmith having repaired it, kepi it some time iu his house, but did not use it. The Defendant, who was Lord of an adjoining manor, in which the blacksmith lived, and also a justice of the peace, on the 17th of September went together with his own game-keeper to the blacksmith's house to search for guns and other engines used for the destruction of the game, arid finding' the gun in question, took it away. It was objected at the trial, that the Defendant ought to have had a month's notice of the action, according to the stat. 24 Geo. 2, c. 44, having acted as a justice of the peace, under the powers given by stat. 5 Anne, c. 14, s. 4, and on that objection the Plaintiff was nonsuited. A rule having been granted to shew cause why the nonsuit should not be set aside, Mr. Justice Gould, who tried the cause, stated the evidence, and that he was of opinion at the trial, that the Defendant was intitled to notice, having acted, though erroneously, in his character of a justice of the peace. And he [115] mentioned the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Rev. Thomas Little v Lord Clements
...Haseldine v. Grove 12 Law Jour. N. S. 15, Mag. Cas. Prestidge v. WoodmanENR 1 B. & C. 12. Cox v. ReidUNK 13 Jur. 563. Briggs v. EvelynENR 2 H. Bl. 114. Waterhouse v. KeenENR 4 B. & C. 209. Culverson v. MeltonUNK 2 M. & R. 200. Toogood v. SpyringENR 1 C. M. & R. 193. Padmore v. Lawrence 11 A......
-
Morgan against Palmer
...in his character of justice or not, he was entitled to a month's notice before the action was commenced against him, Briggs v. Evelyn (2 H. Bl. 114), Greenway v. Hurd (4 T. E. 553), determined on the 23 G. 3, c. 70, s. 30, may also be considered as an authority on this point. [Bayley J. It ......
-
Lidster against Borrow
...that he did consider himself so acting, and the plaintiff cannot allege that in reality he meant to act as gamekeeper : Briggsv. Evelyn (2 H. Bl. 114). [Lord Denman C.J. That case goes very far.] Knowles, contrk Bush v. Green (4 New Ca. 41), decides this case. [Lord Denman C.J. Not expressl......