Gimbert v Coyney and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1825 |
| Date | 01 January 1825 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 148 E.R. 497
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
v. coyney and another, Exchequer of Pleas. 1825. -The fi Geo. IV., c. 1H, s. (J, merely puts warrants, addressed to peace officers, in their official character, on the same footing on which warrants addressed to them by name stood previously, and therefore does not oblige, but only authorizes officers to execute the former. - A notice of action to magistrates is not vitiated by being in the form of a declaration, and unnecessarily ample, if it expresses the cause of action with sufficient clearness. - A conviction on a statute, on the face of it not pursuing the provisions of the statute, nor shewing that any offence has been committed, is bad ; and although it has not been quashed, its invalidity may be taken advantage of, on the trial of an action of trespass for a distress taken under a warrant grounded on it. Trespass, for that the defendants broke and entered the plaintiff's dwelling-house, &c., and -.seized his goods, &o., to wit, one silver watch, one gold and rnetal key, and one metal key and riband, of the value of 20s., and took, and carried away, and converted the same to their own use. Plea, the general issue. On the trial before Garrow, B., at the last Staffordshire assizes, it appeared that the plaintiff had been headborough of the parish of Gheadle, in the county of iStafford. On the 30th of July, 1&24, a warrant was granted by Mr. Whieldon, a justice of the peace of the county, for the apprehension of one Bloor, who resided in another parish, at a place seven miles distant from Cheadle, for an assault committed by him, upon one Reilly, addressed " to the constable of Cheadle, and all other peace officers in the said county " (Stafford). This was delivered to the plaintiff, but he declined to execute it. In consequence, Mr. Whieldon issued a summons, requiring him to appear before himself and other justices, to shew cause why he refused. He accordingly attended before (a) The Court had been furnished with a MS. note of the case. 49j8 GIMBERT V. COYNBY M'CLE. & YO. 470. Mr. Whieldon and the two defendants, who [470] are also justices for Staffordshire, and was convicted by the two latter, under the 33 Geo. III., e. 55, s. l^*)1 in a mitigated penalty of 20s. and costs, for refusing to execute the warrant, and discharged from his office. The conviction set forth that J. R, late of Chearlle, in the county of Stafford, had complained to W. W. C., and W. D. S., esquires, (the defendants), two of his majesty's justices of the peace for that county, that J. Gimbert, headhorough of the said parish of Cheadle, did, on Saturday the 31st of July last, neglect and refuse to execute a warrant under the hand and seal of G. W., esquire, one of his majesty's justices of the peace for the said county, directed as before mentioned, being a warrant for the apprehension of one J. B., for an assault committed by him on the said J. R., and that the said J. G., having appeared before them, &c., and not having shewn any just cause to the contrary, they, the said justices, did convict him, and order and adjudge, that he should pay the mitigated penalty stated, besides the coats. The defendant would riot pay the tine, upon which, a warrant of distress following the tenor of the conviction, was granted by the two defendants, for the levy of it; and under it, the articles mentioned in the declaration were seized and sold. The plaintiff's counsel contended, that the conviction was informal and invalid, in not shewing an authority in the magistrate, or a neglect of [471] duty in the officer, and that therefore the foundation of the distress failed; but the objection was over-ruled. The defendants' counsel insisted, that the action could not be sustained on either of two grounds; first, that the notice of action (*)2 given under the 24th (*)1 By which it is enacted, " That it shall and may be lawful for any two or more of his majesty's justices of the peace, assembled at any special or petty sessions of the peace, upon complaint being made upon oath, before them, of any neglect of duty, or of any disobedience of any lawful warrant, or order of any justice or justices of the peace, by any constable, overseer of the poor, or other peace or parish officer (such constable, &c., having been duly summoned to appear and answer such charge or complaint,), to impose, upon conviction, any fine or fines, not exceeding the sum of forty shillings, upon such constable, overseer, or other officer, as a punishment for suoh disobedience, or neglect of duty; and by warrant under the hands and seals of any two or more of such justices assembled at any such special or petty sessions as aforesaid, to direct such fine or fines, if not paid, to be levied by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the person or persons so offending." (*)2 The notice was as follows :- To W. W. Coyney and W. D. Sneycl, Esqs., two of his majesty's justices of the peace in and for the county of Stafford. I, Jesse Gimbert, of Cheadle, in the county of Stafford, tax collector, do hereby, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, give you and each of you notice that I shall, by my attorney, W. Keys, of Cheadle aforesaid, at or soqn after the expiration of one calendar month from the time of your being served with this notice, cause a writ of quo minus to be sued and issued out of his majesty's Court of Exchequer, at Westminster, against you and each of you, at my suit, and proceed thereupon, according to law ; for that you the said W. W. Coyney and W. D. Stieyd, heretofore, (to wit), on the 16th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1824, and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of the date hereof, with force and arms, &c., broke and entered a certain messuage, dwelling-house, and premises...
To continue reading
Request your trial