Entick v Carrington

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1799
Date01 January 1799
Docket Number541
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 95 E.R. 807

IN THE KING'S COURTS AT WESTMINSTER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

John Entick
Clerk
and
Nathan Carrington and Three Others, Messengers in Ordinary to the King. C. B

S. C. 19 How. St. Tri. 1030. Referred to, Dillon v. O'Brien, 1887, 20 L. R. Ir. 316; Jones, v. German [1896], 2 Q. B. 423; [1897], 1 Q. B. 374.

[275] john entick, Clerk, versus nathan carrington and three others, Messengers in Ordinary to the King. C. B. Trespass for breaking and entering plaintiffs house, &c. Special justification under a warrant of the Secretary of State. [S. C. 19 How. St. Tri. 1030. Referred to, Dillon v. O'Brien, 1887, 20 L. E. Ir. 316 ; Jones v. German [1896], 2 Q. B. 423; [1897], 1 Q. B. 374.] In trespass; the plaintiff declares that the defendants on the llth day of November in the year of our Lord 1762, at Westminster in Middlesex, with force and arms broke and entered tie dwelling-house of the plaintiff in the parish of St. Dunstan Stepney, and continued there four hours without his consent and against his will, and all that time disturbed him in the peaceable possession thereof, and broke open the doors to the rooms, the locks, iron bars, &c. thereto affixed, and broke open the boxes, chests, drawers, &c. of the plaintiff in his house, and broke the locks thereto affixed, and searched and examined all the rooms, &c. in his dwelling-house, and all the boxes, & h so broke open, and read over, pryed into, and examined all the private papers, books, &o. of the plaintiff there found, whereby the secret affairs, &c. of the plaintiff became wrongfully discovered and made public; and took and carried away 100 printed charts, 100 printed pamphlets, &c. &c. of the plaintiff there found, and other 808 MICHAELMAS TERM, 6 GEO. III. 1765 3 WI18. E.B. 276. 100 cnarts, &c. &c. took and carried away, to the damage of the plaintiff 20001. The defendants plead, 1st, not guilty to the whole declaration, whereupon issue is joined. 2dly, as to the breaking and entering the dwelling-house, and continuing four hours, and all that time disturbing him in the possession thereof, and breaking open the doors to the rooms, and breaking open the boxes, chests, drawers, &c. of the plaintiff in his bouse, and the searching and examining all the rooms, &c. in his dwelling-house, and all the boxes, &c. so broke open, and reading over, prying into, and examining the private papers, books, &c. of the plaintiff there found, and taking and carrying away the goods and chattels in the declaration first mentioned there found, and also as to taking and carrying away the goods and chattels in the declaration last mentioned, the defendants say, the plaintiff ought not to have his action against them, because they say, that before the supposed trespass, on the 6th of November 1762, and before, until, and all the time of the supposed trespass, the Earl of Halifax was, and yet is, one of the Lords of the King's Privy Council, and one of his principal Secretaries of State, and that the earl, before the trespass on the 6th of November 1762, made his warrant under his hand and seal directed to the defendants, by which the earl did in the King's name authorize and require the defendants, taking a constable to their assistance, to make strict and diligent search for the plaintiff, mentioned in the said warrant to be the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly very seditious papers, intitled The Monitor, or British Freeholder, No. 357, 358, 360, 373, 376, 378, and 380; [276] London, printed for J. Wilson and J. Fell in Paternoster-Row, containing gross and scandalous reflections and invectives upon His Majesty's Government, and upon both Houses of Parliament, and him the plaintiff having found, to seize and apprehend and bring together with his books and papers in safe custody, before the Earl of Halifax to be examined concerning the premises, and further dealt with according to law; in the due execution whereof all mayors, sheriffs, justices of the peace, constables, and all other His Majesty's officers civil and military and loving subjects, whom it might concern, were to be aiding and assisting to them the defendants, as there should be occasion : and the defendants further say, that afterwards and before the trespass, on the same day and year, the warrant was delivered to them to be executed, and thereupon they on the same day and year in the declaration, in the day time about 11 o'clock, being the said time when, &c. by virtue and for the execution of the said warrant, entered the plaintiff's dwelling-house, the outer door thereof being then open, to search for and seize the plaintiff and his books and papers in order to bring him and them before the Earl of Halifax, according to the warrant, and the defendants did then and there find the plaintiff, and seized and apprehended him, and did search for his books and papers in his house, and did necessarily search and examine the rooms therein, and also his boxes, chests, &c. there, in order to find and seize his books and papers, and to bring them along with the plaintiff before the said earl, according to the warrant; and upon the said search did then in the said house find and seize the goods and chattels of the plaintiff in the declaration, and on the same day did carry the said books and papers to a house at Westminster, where the said earl then and long before transacted the business of his office, and delivered the same to Lovel Stanhope Esq. who then was, and yet is an assistant to the earl in his office as Secretary of State, to be examined, and who was then authorized to receive the same from them for that purpose, as it was lawful for them to do; and the plaintiff afterwards, (to wit) on the 17th of November in the said year, was discharged out of their custody, and in searching for the books and papers of the plaintiff the defendants did necessarily read over, pry into, and examine the said private papers, books, &c. of the plaintiff in the declaration mentioned! then found in his house ; and because at the said time when, &c. the said doors in the said house leading to the rooms therein, and the said boxes, chests, &e. were shut and fastened so that the defendants could not search and examine the said rooms, boxes, chests, &c. they, for the necessary searching and examining the same, did then necessarily break and force open the said doors, boxes, chests, &c. as it was lawful for them to do; and on the said occasion the defendants necessarily stayed in the house of the plaintiff for the said four hours, and unavoidably during that time disturbed him in the possession thereof, they the defendants doing as little [277] damage to the plaintiff as they possibly could, which are the same breaking and entering the house of the plaintiff, &c. (and so repeat the trespass covered by this plea) whereof the plaintiff above complains; and this, &c., wherefore they pray judgment, &c. The a WILS. K. B. 278. MICHAELMAS TERM, 6 GEO. III. 1765 809 plaintiff replies to the plea of justification above, that (as to the trespass thereby covered) ha, by any thing alledged by the defendants therein, ought not to be barred from having his action against them, because he says, that the defendants at the pariah of Stepney, of their own wrong, and without the cause by them in that plea alledged, broke and entered the house of the plaintiff, &c. &c. in manner and form as the plaintiff hath complained above; and this he prays may be inquired of by the country; and the defendants do so likewise. There is another plea of justification like the firat, with this difference only, that in the last plea it is alledged, the plaintiff and his papers, &c. were carried before Lord Halifax, but in the first, it is before Lovel Stanhope, his assistant or law clerk ; and the like replication of de injuria sua propria absq. tali causa, whereupon a third issue is joined. This cause was tried in Westminster-Hall before the Lord Chief Justice, when the jury found a special verdict to the following purport: The jurors opon their oath say, as to the issue first joined, (upon the plea of not guilty to the whole trespass in the declaration,) that as to the coming with force and arms, and also the trespass in declaration, except the breaking and entering the dwelling-house of the plaintiff, and continuing therein for the space of four hours, and all that time disturbing him in the possession thereof, and searching several rooms therein, and in one bureau, one writing-desk, arid several drawers of the plaintiff in his house, and reading over and examining several of his papers there, and seizing, taking and carrying away some of his books and papers there found, in the declaration complained of, the said defendants are not guilty. As to breaking and entering the dwelling-house, &c. (above excepted,) the jurors on their oath say, that at the time of making the following information, and before and until and at the time of granting the warrant hereafter mentioned, and from thence hitherto, the Earl of Halifax was, and still is one of the lords of the King's Privy Council, and one of his principal Secretaries of State, and that before the time in the declaration, viz. on the llth of October 1762, at Saint James's, Westminster, one Jonathan Scott of London, bookseller and publisher, came before Edward Weston Esq. an assistant to the said earl, and a justice of peaee for the City and liberty of Westminster, and there made and gave information in writing to and before the said Edward Weston against the said John Entick and others, the tenor of which information now produced and given ia evidence to the jurors followeth in these words and figures, to wit, " The voluntary information of J. Scott, in the year 1755. I proposed setting up a paper, and mentioned it to Dr. Shebbeare, and in a few days one Arthur Beardmore, an [278] attorney at law, sent for me, hearing of my intention, and desired I would...

To continue reading

Request your trial
126 cases
  • An Applicaiton for Judicial Review by the Landlords Association for Northern Ireland
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland)
    • 14 March 2005
    ... ... In the locus classicus enunciating this principle Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 State Trials 1029 at 1060 Pratt LJ stated: “The great end for which men entered into society was to secure their ... ...
  • State v Gobin; State v Griffith
    • Guyana
    • Court of Appeal (Guyana)
    • 31 March 1976
    ...century, this law of nature became classified as a law of the land. So it was that in John Entick v. Nathan Carrington & Others (1765) 19 St. Tr. 1030, Lord Chief Justice Camden, in the judgment of the court, was able to say (p. 1073) that: “It is very certain that the law obligeth no man t......
  • Can v. Calgary Chief of Police et al.,
    • Canada
    • Court of Appeal (Alberta)
    • 6 May 2014
    ...115, footnote 59]. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford (1891), 141 U.S. 250, refd to. [para. 115, footnote 59]. Entick v. Carrington (1765), 95 E.R. 807, refd to. [para. 115, footnote R. v. Clayton (W.) et al. (2005), 196 O.A.C. 16; 194 C.C.C.(2d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 117, footnote......
  • R. v. Raponi (W.), 2006 ABQB 593
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • 23 June 2006
    ...122; 33 C.R.R.(2d) 123; 1995 CarswellBC 974, refd to. [para. 130, footnote 81]. Entick v. Carrington, [1558-1774] All E.R. Rep. 41; 95 E.R. 807; 19 State Tr. 1029; 2 Wils. K.B. 275 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 138, footnote Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
20 books & journal articles
  • The Broken Fourth Amendment Oath.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 74 No. 3, March 2022
    • 1 March 2022
    ...the allegations promptly. See id. at 31. (320.) See infra Part III.B. (321.) E.g., Entick v. Carrington (1765) 95 Eng. Rep. 807, 818; 2 Wils. K.B. 275,291-92; Ex parte Burford, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 448, 452 (1806); Veeder v. United States, 252 F. 414, 418 (7th Cir. 1918); see also Entick v. Ca......
  • Subject Index, Volume 77, 2004
    • United Kingdom
    • Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles No. 77-4, November 2004
    • 1 November 2004
    ...260Director of Public Prosecutions v Chippendale, January 2004, QBD(Div) 77–81Entrick v Carrington (1765) 19 State Tr. 1029, 2 Wils 275, 95 ER 807,Court of Common Pleas 142Garvin v City of London Police Authority [1994] KB 358 224, 230Ghani v Jones (1970) 1 QB 693 68, 71Gillick v West Norfo......
  • Subject Index
    • United Kingdom
    • International Journal of Evidence & Proof, The No. 15-4, October 2011
    • 1 October 2011
    .... . . . . . . . 267English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002]EWCA Civ605, [2002] 1WLR 2409 . . . . . . . 354Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 State Trials 1030(KB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291Fibreboard Corporation, In re 893 F 2d 706 (5thCir 1990) . .......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Equitable Remedies. Second Edition
    • 18 June 2013
    ...Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 916, 83 D.L.R. (3d) 1, 20 N.R. 1 .............. 69, 311–12, 465, 474 Entick v. Carrington (1765), 2 Wils. 275, 95 E.R. 807, [1558–1774] All E.R. Rep. 41 (C.P.) ............................................................. 165 Epstein v. Cressey Development Corp. (1990)......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT