Grindley against Holloway
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 1780 |
| Date | 25 January 1780 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 198
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[307] cases akgued and determined in the court of king's bench, in hilary term, in the twentieth year of the reign of george III. grindley against holloway. Tuesday, 25th Jan. 1780. To entitle a constable, &c. to double costs under 7 Jac. 1, c. 5. after a verdict for him, it must be certified, by the Judge who tried the cause, that he was acting in the execution of his office. This was an action of trespass, in which, on the plea of not guilty, a verdict was found for the defendant. In the last term, Wood had obtained a rule to shew cause, why it should not be entered on the roll, that the defendant was a constable, and that the action was brought for what he had done in the execution of his office. By the statute of 7 Jac. 1, c. 5 (a), it is enacted, that if any action shall be brought against a justice of peace, constable, &c. for any thing done by virtue or reason of his office, he may plead the general issue, and give the special matter in evidence; and, if the verdict shall pass with the defendant in such action, or the plaintiff become nonsuit, or suffer a discontinuance, in every such case, the justices or justice, or such other Judge before whom the said matter shall be tried, shall allow to the defendant bis [t 81] In the case of Shirley v. Wilkinson, which came on in B. R. M. 22 Geo. 3, upon a motion for a new trial, Lord Mansfield and the rest of the Court were clearly of opinion, that, if the broker, at the time when the policy is effected, in representing to the underwriter the state of the ship, and the last intelligence concerning her, does not disclose the whole, and what he conceals shall appear material to the jury, they ought to find for the underwriter, the contract, in such case, being void, although the concealment should have been innocent, the facts not mentioned having appeared immaterial to the broker, and having not been communicated merely on that account [f]. (a) Made perpetual, 21 Jac. 1, c. 12. [f] See Macdowall v. Fraser, supra, 260. 1DOUOL. 308. THE KING V. UNDER-BARROW 199 double costs [f]. There was no indorsement on the postea, nor certificate, in- this case; but, in an affidavit of the defendant, it was sworn, that the act for which he was sued, was done in the execution of his office. Wood, in support of the rule, cited Rex v. Poland (a), [308] and Devenish v. Mertins (V), a case on this very statute, where it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v Bennett
...S. C. on Appeal, 1 Bligh, N. S. 545. England v. Davison 9 Dowl Pr. C. 1052. Kilburn v. KilburnENR 13 M. & W. 671. Grindley v. HallowayENR 1 Dougl. 307. Good v. WatkinsENR 3 East, 495. Mellish v. RichardsonENR 9 Bingh. 125; S. C. on Appeal, 1 Cl. & fin. 224. Newton v. BoodleENR 6 C. B. 529. ......