Flewster v Role, Widow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 February 1808 |
| Date | 16 February 1808 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 924
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Dissented from, Gosden v. Elphick, 1849, 4 Ex. 445, Grinham v. Willey, 1859, 4 H. & N. 496
[187] Adjourned Sittings at Westminster. Tuesday, Feb. 16, 1808. flewster v. role, widow. (If A. btatefe positively to the commander of a press-gang, that B is liable to the impress service, who in truth is not so, and B in consequence of this information, is impressed, A. is liable to an action of trespass and false imprisonment at the suit of B.) [Dissented from, Gosden v. Elphick, 1849, 4 Ex. 445 , Gnnham v. Willey, 1859, 4 H. & N. 496 ] Trespass and false imprisonment -Plea, not guilty.-It appeared that on the bth day of October last, the defendant went to the place of rendezvous for the impress service near the Tower, and gave information that there was a young man (meaning the plaintiff) at a house she described, who was liable to be impressed, and who was a fit person to serve his Majesty. In consequence of this the plaintiff was seized by the press-gang and carried on board the tender, where he was detained, until it was discovered that he had never been in a ship before, except once, when he had been in like manner wrongfully impressed Garrow for the defendant, made two points , 1st, that the action should have been case and not trespass ; and, 2dly, that if the defendant gave the information bona fide, the action would not lie at all He represented the public inconvenience which would arise from a contrary doctrine, as it was often of the utmost consequence to the government of the country, that information should be given where sailors might be found to man our ships of war, and people would never give this information, [188] if, though acting from the purest motives, they might suffer from an ignorance of the niceties of the impress-law, which sometimes perplex men of great experience m Westminster Hall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Attorney General v Edge
...7 E. & B. 186, at p. 199. (2) 3 E. & E. 332. (3) 24 Ch. D. 317. (1) Before Murnaghan , Geoghegan , O'Byrne , Black and Gavan Duffy JJ. (1) 1 Camp. 187. (2) 5 Mod. Rep. 221. (3) Sir T. Raym. 474 (4) 2 Mod. Rep. 128. (5) 8 Cox, C. C. 405. (6) [1932] I. R. 28. (7) 24 Ch. D. 317. (8) 2 Show. K.......
-
Bennett v Bayes, Pennington and Harrison
...Bayes and Pennington are not liable: Laugher v. Pmntrr (5 B & C. 547), Quannan v. Burnett (6 M. & W 499). The case of Fleiostei v. Royle (1 Camp. 187) was disapproved of by this Court in Gosden v. Elphick (4 Exch. 445). [Bramwell, B. Suppose Bayes and Pennington had died or resigned their a......
-
Hensworth against Fowkes
...And assuming that they acted under the warrant, they would not be thereby justified in demolishing the door and pantry. Flewster v. Boyle (1 Campb. 187), shews that a party who procures another to be imprisoned is a trespasser. The defendant here is charged with being a trespasser, when it ......
-
Brown v Chapman
...was the defendant's act. There clearly was some evidence to go to the jury : Cant v. Parsons (6 C. & P. 504). In Flewster v. Eoyle (1 Campb. 187), it was held, that, if A. states positively to the commander of a press-gang that B. is liable to the impress-service, who in truth is not so, an......