Garnett against Ferrand and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 May 1827 |
| Date | 28 May 1827 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 576
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 9 D. & R. 657; 5 L. J. K. B. O. S. 221. Considered and adopted, Kemp v. Neville, 1861, 10 C. B. N. S. 550. Referred to, Willis v. Maclachlan, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 383.
[611] garnett against ferrand and another. Monday, May 28tb, 1827. No action will lie against the Judge of a Court of Record for an act done by him in his judicial capacity, and therefore trespass cannot be maintained against a coroner for turning a person out of a room where he is about to take an inquisition. [S. C. 9 D. & E. 657 ; 5 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 221. Considered and adopted, Kemp v. Neville, 1861, 10 C. B. N. S. 550. Referred to, Willis v. Madachlm, 1876, 1 Ex. D. 383.] Trespass for assaulting the plaintiff, and turning him out of a room. Pleas, 1. General issue. 2. That before and at the time when, &c. defendant Ferrand was one of the coroners for the County Palatine of Lancaster, and being such coroner, was just before the said time when, &c. in the said room in the declaration mentioned, within the said county, and within his jurisdiction as such coroner, for the purpose of taking an inquisition upon view of the body of B. C., then and there lying dead, within the jurisdiction of the defendant Ferrand, as such coroner, touching the death of the said B. C., and that afterwards, and just before the said time when, &c. and while the said Ferrand was in the said room as such coroner, and for the purpose aforesaid, the plaintiff not having been summoned as a witness or juror touching the said inquisition, nor coming before the said Ferrand as such coroner, to testify any knowledge concerning the same, with force and arms, &c. wrongfully broke and entered into the said room, and intruded himself upon the said defendant Ferrand, so being therein as such coroner, and for the purpose aforesaid; and thereupon defendant Ferrand requested plaintiff to go and depart from and out of the said room, which he 6B.&C. 612. GAKNETT V. FERRAND 577 wholly refused to do, and continued in the same room in contempt of the defendant Ferrand as such coroner; and to the disturbance and violation of due order and decency in the administration of justice, and to the great binderance thereof; and there-[612]-upon defendant Ferrand and the other defendant, as his servant, and by his command, gently laid their hands on the plaintiff and turned him out. The third plea alleged, in like manner, that defendant Ferrand was about to hold an inquest, and that plaintiff wrongfully broke and entered into the said room, for the purpose of wrongfully and illegally taking notes of and publishing the proceedings of the said inquisition : and plaintiff was then and there wrongfully and illegally about to take notes of and publish the said proceedings, and would then and there wrongfully and illegally have taken notes of and published the same if he had been permitted to remain in the said room during the said proceedings, to the great hinderance of public justice; and thereupon defendant Ferrand, in order to prevent the plaintiff from so wrongfully and illegally taking notes of, and publishing the proceedings before the termination of the same, then and there requested the plaintiff to depart, &c., as in the second plea. Fourth plea, that defendant Ferrand was in the said room, the same being a private room hired by him for certain business therein, and plaintiff wrongfully broke and entered the said room; whereupon defendant Ferrand requested him to depart, and because he refused, turned him out. Replication ta second plea, that true it is defendant Ferrand was a coroner, and was in the room for the purpose in the plea mentioned, and that plaintiff entered, not being summoned, &c., and refused to go out; and plaintiff further saith, that afterwards, and whilst defendant F. was in the room for the purpose of holding the inquisition in the second plea mentioned, and after all the jurors had been duly sworn to inquire touching the death of the said B. C., plaintiff then and still being a [613] liege subject of the realm, peaceably and quietly entered into the said room, the door thereof being then and there open, to witness and be present at the said inquisition so then about to be taken, the said room being then and there sufficiently capacious to admit the presence of the plaintiff at the said inquisition, without any manner of obstruction or hinderance to the taking thereof, and then and there continued, &e., without this that defendants committed the trespasses in the second plea mentioned, with the residue of the cause in that plea alleged. The replication to the third plea contained th same admissions, and alleged the same facts as the last, and traversed the residue of the cause stated in the third plea. Replication to the fourth plea, that defendant F. was coroner, and about to hold an inquest on B. 0. in the said room, and that plaintiff, being a liege subject, peaceably entered the said room, the door being open, and the room having been hired for the purpose of taking the inquisition, to witness and be present at the said inquest so about to be taken, the said room being sufficiently capacious to admit the presence of plaintiff at the inquisition without obstruction to the taking thereof, and continued in said room, conducting himself peaceably and quietly, and in an orderly and proper manner, for the purpose of witnessing and being present at the said inquisition, until defendants turned him out, &c. Special demurrer to the replication to the second and third pleas, for that they did not tender any single or material issue, and were argumentative ; and also for that the plaintiff had not in the inducement to the special traverse expressly alleged any new matter, nor admitted nor expressly denied the allegation in the pleas; and also for that the special traverse in each [614J concluded with a verification, without any sufficient allegation of new matter. General demurrer to the replication to fourth plea. Joinder. This case was argued on a former day in this term by Follett in support of the demurrer. The principal question in this case arises upon the replication to the last plea. That plea states matter which is clearly a sufficient defence to the action; the question therefore is, whether the replication is a sufficient answer to the plea 1 It must be taken, that the plaintiff was not in any way connected with the proceedings; that he was not summoned, nor accused, nor suspected, nor a relation of the deceased, nor even an inhabitant of the vill where the body was found ; and the question will be, whether every person, under such circumstances, has a right to be present at a coroner's inquest, or whether the coroner, the presiding officer, may not, in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ernst v. Alberta Energy Regulator, 2017 SCC 1
...Canada (Attorney General), [2000] 3 F.C. 298, leave to appeal refused, [2000] 2 S.C.R. xiv; Garnett v. Ferrand (1827), 6 B. & C. 611, 108 E.R. 576; Fray v. Blackburn (1863), 3 B. & S. 576, 122 E.R. 217; Royer v. Mignault, [1988] R.J.Q. 670; Canada (Attorney General) v. Slansky, 2013......
-
Morris v Dublin City Coroner
... ... ON DEATH CERTIFICATION & CORONERS INQUESTS (CMD 4810) GARNETT V FERRAND 6 B & C 610 CORONERS ACT 1962 S29(3) CORONERS ACT ... "No question arose as to the reality of the threat made against the garda members. All counsel present (including counsel for the family) ... 24 In a case decided as long ago as 1827, Garnett .v. Ferrand & Another, ( 6 B & C, 610) Lord Tenterden C.J. said that:- ... ...
- Annetts v Mccann
-
O.F. v Oædonnell
...1 I.R. 505; [2000] 1 I.L.R.M 502. Doran v. Ireland (App. No. 50389/99) (2006) 42 E.H.R.R. 13. Garnett v. Ferrand (1827) 6 B. & C. 611; 108 E.R. 576; [1824-34] All E.R. Rep. 244. Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria (App. No. 30985/96) (2002) 34 E.H.R.R. 55. Ilhan v. Turkey (App. No. 22277/93) (2002......