Bryant v Clutton
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Date | 01 January 1836 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 493
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Tyr. & G. 843; 5 Dowl. P. C. 66; 2 Gale, 50; 5 L. J. Ex. 182.
bryant v. glutton. Exch. of Pleas. 18r!6.-A., being in the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench prison, was brought up to that Court upon an order of the Court, and charged with an attachment for contempt: upon which attachment he was afterwards detained in custody :-Held, that trespass was maintain able against the party who caused the order to be served on the Marshal; dissentiente Lord Abinger, C. B. [S. C, 1 Tyr. & G. 843; 5 Dowl. P. C. 60; 2 Gale, 50; 5 L. J. Ex. 182.] Trespass for assaulting arid imprisoning the plaintiff. Pleas, first, not guilty; secondly, a special plea justifying [409] the trespasses under an attachment issued out jf the Court of King's Bench, for a contempt in non-payment of costs pursuant to the Master's allocatur. Replication, tie injuria. At the trial before Lord Abinger, C. B., at the Middlesex Sittings after last Michaelmas Term, the plaintiffs counsel opened the following case :-That the plaintiff, being in the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench prison, was brought up to that Court by an order obtained by the defendant, and served upon the gaoler by the defendant's clerk, the defendant being an attorney; that, on being brought up, he was committed by the Court to the same custody on an attachment for non-payment of costs, and was detained in prison thereon for the space of four years and a half. It appearing, in answer to an inquiry from the Lord Chief Baron, that it could not be shewn that the defendant had personally interfered in the imprisonment, he nonsuited the plaintiff, being of opinion that, under such circumstances, the defendant was not liable in trespass ; and that, if any action were maintainable at all, it must have been an action on the ease, provided malice could be proved ; and that it was not necessary to go into the issue on the second plea, as the general issue was ati answer, the plaintiff not having been guilty of any trespass. Bompas, Serjt., in Hilary Term obtained a rule to shew cause why the nonsuit should not be set aside, relying on Bates v. Pilling (6 B. & C. 3H ; 9 D. & R. 44). Platt now shewed cause. The nonsuit was right, as there was no evidence offered of any imprisonment by the defendant, the imprisoning him under the attachment being the act of the Court of King's Bench in awarding the attachment. The defendant is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sir William Gosset against Howard
...the Queen's Bench had been set aside by that Court before the action ol trespass was brought in the Common Pleas. In Bryant v. Glutton (1 M. & W. 408; Tyr. & G. 843), the process of the King's Bench had not been brought into question when the cause was stopped; the only decision was that th......
-
Coppinger v Bradley
...C. 10; Frost's case, 5 Rep. 89; 1st Resol. Withers v. HenleyENR Cro. Jac. 379. Crowley v. ImpeyENR 2 Stark. 261. Bryant v. CluttonENRUNK 1 Mees. & W. 408; S. C. 2 Gale, 50. Blessley v. slomanENR 3 Mees. & W. 40. Genner v. SparksENR 1 Salk. 79. Homer v. Battyn Bull. N. P. 62. Arrowsmith v. L......
-
Green against Matthew Elgie and Toulmin
...guilty, the facts sufficiently [106] shewed the defendant to be a trespasser; Bates v. Pilling (6 B. & C. 38), and Bryant v. Glutton (1 M. & W. 408. Tyr. & Gr. 843); which latter case agrees with Sowell v. Champion (6 A. & E. 407). Lord Abinger differed from the rest of the Court in Bryant ......
-
Cooper against William Harding and George Smith
...execution of void process, do not apply; and the defendants are liable in trespass, on the principles established by Bryant v. Clutian (1 M. & W. 408. Tyr. & G. 843), Bates v. Pitting (6 B. & C. 38), and Sowell v. Champion (6 A. & E. 407). They do not represent a person who has merely origi......