Cook v Nethercote
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 January 1835 |
| Date | 21 January 1835 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 172 E.R. 1443
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
First Sitting at Westminster, in Hilary Term, 1834, before Mr. Baron Alderson. Jan. 21st, 1835. cook v. nethercotb (To justify a constable in apprehending a party without warrant for an affray, it is essential that the party should have been engaged in the affray, and that the constable should have had view of the affray, while the party was so engaged in it, and that the affray was still continuing at the time of the apprehension It is no ground for rejecting a witness's evidence, that he remained in Court after an order for all the witnesses to leave the Court, it is merely matter of observation on his evidence.) Assault.-The declaration, which consisted of only one count, stated that the (a) 2 New Rep. 211, mentioned in the case of Wood v. Lane, post, and the case of Ckinn v. Morris, ante, vol. n. p. 361. * See the cases of Cant v. Parsons, ante, p 504, and Wood v. Lane, post, p. 774. 1444 COOK V. NITHERCOTE 8 CAR. 4 P. 742. defendant gave to the plaintiff " a most severe and violent kick " upon one of his legs, which prevented him from attending his business. Pleas-first, not guilty ; second, that the plaintiff made an assault on the defendant, laid hold of the defendant, and dragged him about, and struck him, and that, to defend himself, he assaulted the plaintiff , third, that the plaintiff assaulted the defendant, and would have beaten, bruised, and ill-treated him, if he had not defended himself Replication, to the second plea, that, just before the time when &c , at an early and unreasonable hour of the morning, the defendant and four others, in an unlawful and [742] riotous rnaomer, and without any lawful or probable cause or reason, knocked loudly and violently at the doors of divers houses at Eton, and made and continued making great noise, disturbance, and affray, to the terror and alarm of his Majesty's subjects ; and that the defendant was continuing such noise, disturbance, and affray, whereupon James William Needham (then being high-constable of and for the division in which Eton is situate) had view of the said breach of the peace, and called upon and required the plaintiff to aid and assist him in apprehending the defendant and the other persons^ in order that they might be brought before a justice of the peace to answer for such offence ; and thereupon the plaintiff, in aid of the said J. W. N., gently laid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Creagh v Gamble
...L. R. 4 Q. B. 693. Mersey Docks Trustees v. GibbsELR L. R. 1 H. L. 93, 111. Parton v. WilliamsENR 3 B. & Ald. 330. Cook v. NethercoteENR 6 C. & P. 741. Rex v. WhalleyENR 7 C. & P. 245. Rex v. Patience Ibid. 775. Rex v. WeirENR 1 B. & C. 288. Hoye v. Bush 2 Scott's N. R. 86. Peppercorn v. Ho......
-
Galliard Appellant, Laxton Respondent
...the warrant was not addressed to the person making the arreat.] [He also cited Hooper v. Lane (6 H. L. Ca. 443) and Cook v. Nelhercote (6 C. & P. 741).] Secondly, the first information having been withdrawn, the defendant was not liable to be tried on the second. [He cited Tunnidi/e v. Tedd......
-
Humphries v Connor
...& W. 28. Forde v. SkinnerENR 4 C. & P. 239. James v. CampbellENR 5 C. & P. 372. Peddell v. RutterENR 8 C. & P. 337. Cook v. NethercoteENR 6 C. & P. 741. Alderson v. WaistellENR 1 C. & K. 358. Ragina v. Brown C. & M. 314. The King v. StubbsENR 2 T. R. 406. Regina v. HoganENR 8 C. & P. 167. C......
-
Cobbett v Hudson
...to the infliction of the fine, and that he cannot lawfully refuse to permit the examination of the witnesses; see Cook v. Nethercote (6 C. & P. 741), Thomas v. David (7 C. & P. 350), Rex v. Collay (1 Moo. & M. 329). We may hope that, without any positive rule against a party addressing the ......
-
Unchecked power: the constitutional regulation of arrest reconsidered.
...of the peace was a precondition for a warrantless misdemeanor arrest at 326-45). (40) See Cook v. Nethercote (1835), 6 Car. & P 741, 172 E.R. 1443 at 1445 (Ex. Ct.); Mathews v. Biddulph (1841), 3 Man. & G. 390, 133 E.R. 1195 (41) Criminal Code, supra note 3, s. 9(a) (foreclosing con......