Green against Matthew Elgie and Toulmin
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 1843 |
| Date | 23 June 1843 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 1186
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. D. & M. 199; 14 L. J. Q. B. 162; 8 Jur. 187.
green against matthew elgie and toulmin. Friday, June 23d, 1843. A warrant of commitment by the Court of Review, made in the matter of E., a bankrupt, after reciting that by an order of the same Court therein, on the petition of E., it was ordered that W. G. should stand committed to the Fleet, for his contempt in the said petition mentioned, and that a warrant should issue for that purpose, required the warden of the Fleet to take W. G. and convey him to the Fleet, there to remain until the further order of the Court. The previous order stated a petition to have been preferred by E., that W. G. might stand committed " for his contempt of the order in the said petition mentioned," but specified nothing further as to the contempt. Held that the warrant and order were bad, as not containing any proper adjudication of a contempt, nor shewing how the party committed might clear himself. In an action of trespass against the petitioner's attorney for falsely and maliciously imprisoning plaintiff; plea not guilty ; the plaintiff proved that defendant had indorsed his name and address on the warrant sued out for the petitioner, on which plaintiff was committed. Held sufficient evidence to support a verdict for plaintiff on such plea. An attorney, who deliberately directs the execution of a warrant, is liable in trespass if it prove bad. And, although (semble) the act of the attorney in handing over the warrant for execution might be so divested of any further proof of concurrence on his part that he would not be liable, he is liable so if his conduct in or after the performance of such act shews a motive beyond the mere wish to discharge professional duty ; as if, after the commitment, be has improperly delayed giving information as to costs, which was required by parties wishing to pay such coats and thereby purge the contempt. Where one of two defendants in trespass is acquitted, and a verdict passes against the other; semble, per Lord Denraan, C.J., that the latter may move for a new trial without the concurrence of his co-defendant. [S. C. D. & M. 199; 14 L. J. Q. B. 162; 8 Jur. 187.] Trespass for maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause assaulting and imprisoning the plaintiff. Pleas, by Toulmin. 1. Not guilty. Issue thereon. 2. That a commission issued against Matthew Elgie, under which be was adjudged bankrupt: that plaintiff petitioned the Lord Chancellor to supersede the commission ; and such petition, on hearing by the then Vice-[100]-Chancellor, was dismissed with costs, which were taxed. That plaintiff afterwards petitioned the Lord Chancellor that the Vice-Chancellor's order of dismissal might be reversed; and he likewise presented two other petitions in the said matter to the Lord Chancellor. That the Lord Chancellor, on hearing, dismissed the said petitions with costs, which were taxed. That, the costs being unpaid, an order was made by the Court of Review, on Elgie'a petition, that plaintiff should pay the same within fourteen days after personal service of the order. That plaintiff did not so pay ; and thereupon the said Court, on Elgie's further petition, made an order that plaintiff should pay the costs to Elgie, or to Samuel Morgan, his attorney, within four days after personal service of that order, or, in default, should stand committed to the Fleet prison. That plaintiff was person ally served with the order, and made default; and that, he being by reason thereof in contempt of the said Court, Elgie petitioned the Court, reciting the before mentioned proceedings as to costs, and the contempt, and praying that plaintiff might immedi ately stand committed to the Fleet for his said contempt, and that a warrant might issue under the seal of the Court for that purpose. The plea then proceeded as follows. " And thereupon the said Court of Review, by an order in the matter of the said bankruptcy, bearing date to wit on the 29th day of August, A.D. 1833, did order in the words and figures following, viz. : SQ. B. 1M. GREEN V. ELGIE 1187 " In Bankruptcy. Court of Review. Thursday, the 29th day of August, 1833. "In the Matter of Matthew Elgie, a Bankrupt. " Whereas the said Matthew Elgie did, on or about the 19th day of August instant, prefer his petition in the above mattsr to this Court, praying that William Green, [101] in the said petition mentioned or described as of Mattersey, in the county of Nottingham, gentleman, might immediately stand committed to His Majesty's prison of the Fleet for his contempt of the order in the said petition mentioned or referred to, and that a warrant might issue under the seal of this honourable Court for that purpose, and that the said William Green might be ordered to pay to the said petitioner, or to Samuel Morgan his attorney therein mentioned, the costs of the said petitioner of and occasioned by that application : now, upon reading the said petition, and the affidavits of the said petitioner and of the said Samuel Morgan, filed in support thereof, and also the former order of the Court herein, bearing date the 31st day of July last, this Court doth order that the said William Green do stand committed to His Majesty's prison of the Fleet for his contempt in the said petition mentioned or referred to, and that a warrant do forthwith issue for that purpose. " By the Court. J. V., D. Reg. " Whereupon, and in pursuance of the said last mentioned order, a warrant was duly issued out of the said Court of Bankruptcy, under the seal thereof, by the said Court of Review, in the matter of the said bankruptcy, directed to the warden of His then Majesty's prison of the Fleet, which said warrant is in the words following, viz. "In Bankruptcy. Court of Review. " In the Matter of Matthew Elyie, a Bankrupt. " Whereas, by an order made by this Court in the above matter, upon the petition of the said Matthew Elgie, bearing even date herewith, it was ordered that William Green therein named should stand...
To continue reading
Request your trial