Cooper et alt. v Booth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1785 |
| Date | 01 January 1785 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 564
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS.
[135] trinity teem, 25 geo. III. K. B. [1785J. cooper et alt. v booth. This was a writ of error from the Common Pleats. It was an action of trespass : the plaintiff declared for breaking and entenng his dwelling-house, bursting locks, &c and rummaging and throwing about his goods. The defendant pleaded the general issue ; and the jury found a special verdict, to the following effect. That Booth, the plaintiff, in the original suit, was a dealer m tea in the city of Westminster ; that the defendants Cooper and Cameron were officers of excise for collteeting the duties on tea, &c. ; that in January, 1783, Cameron applied to the 31SF. liB. COOPER V. BOOTH 565 commissioners of excise for a \\ arrant to search the house of Booth ; that the commissioners being satis Keel with the reasonableness of his suspicion, did grant a warrant irnpowering him and Cooper to enter into Booth's house, and seize all run tea which should be there found fraudulently concealed , that the defendants did, in consequence of this warrant, in the daytime, enter into the plaintiff's houser and broke open a lock, which the plaintiff had refused to open, and rummaged his goods ; but that they found no tea. [196] Judgment had been given for the plaintiffs in the Common Pleas, and a writ of error on the judgment having been brought, it came on to be argued on this day. (Friday, April 29, 1785 ) Wood, for the plaintiffs in error The question is, Whether the officers are justified in what they have done, not having found any tea ? and it will turn on the construction of the 13th section of stat 10 Geo I ch. 10, which enacts, " That in case any officer, &c. shall suspect that any tea, &c is fraudulently concealed with intent to defraud, &c. upon oath made to the commissioners of excise, setting forth the grounds of his suspicion, it shall be lawful for them to authorise the officer to enter such house by day or night, and if by night, with a peace-officer, and seize and carry away such goods " ; and gives a penalty of £100 upon those who shall obstruct the officer's search. I contend, from the words of the Act, that the officers were justified in this case, though the search was unsuccessful. the Act meant to impower an officer to search upon reasonable grounds of suspicion It would be strange then, that an officer who acts upon reasonable grounds should be deemed a trespasser, notwithstanding any subsequent event may make him so ; besides, the legislature did not mean to impower him to proceed merely from his own discretion. The commissioners, or a justice of peace, as the case may be, are to exercise their judgment on the causes of suspicion alledged, and grant the warrant, if they think fit, and therefore there is no danger in entrusting such a power in the hands [137] of the officer If he does nothing in the exercise of it which exceeds the authority given him by the warrant, he cannot be a trespasser ; and in this case he has not The inconveniences to the revenue would be very great, if officers were not to be justified, though they find nothing in their search. It often happens that the officer is resisted at the beginning, and the goods in the meantime removed ; so that a man may have the best grounds of suspicion, and yet may not find anything to confirm him. It is manifest, from the mention of the penalty for those that impede the officec, that the Act meant to indemnify him throughout: an action of this sort was neve? attempted where there was a reasonable ground of suspicion the true ground of it is malice and vexation on the part of the officer Lord Hale, 2 P C 150, says, the officer will be justified in eventu only: this is merely a dictum, and is unsupported by any authority, BostocJc v. Saunders, Black Rep. 912, seems to have been determined upon this opinion of Lord Hale. The writ of assistance, mentioned in stat. 12 Car II ch 19, is general and directed to all ihe King's subjects, requiring them to aid and assist in the collection of the King's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Flanagan v Commissioner of Australian Federal Police
- Murphy v R
-
Wade Lee Jeremiah(Appellant) v Delia Phoebe Lawrie (First Respondent)
... ... near the middle of the quotation above), as follows: 221 See Cooper v Booth (1785) 3 Esp 135 at 144 [170 ER 564 at 567] where Lord Mansfield described as ... ...
- Mcarthur v Williams