Hamond against Howell, Recorder of London
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Date | 01 January 1793 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 86 E.R. 1035
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Referred to, Groenvelt v. Burwell, 1699, 1 Ld. Raym. 470; S. C. 12 Mod. 391, sub nom. Grenville v. College of Physicians. Approved, Taafe v. Downes, 1813, 3 Moo. P. C. 42 (n.). Considered and followed, Garnett v. Ferrand, 1827, 6 B. & C. 625; Kemp v. Neville, 1861, 10 C. B. N. S. 550.
case 130. hamond against hovvell, Recorder of London. [Referred to, Groenvelt v. Burwell, 1699, 1 Ld. Raym. 470; S. C. 12 Mod. 391, sub nom. Grenville v. College of Physicians. Approved, Taafe v. Dowries, 1813, 3 Moo. P. C. 42 (n.). Considered and followed, Garnett v. Ferrand, 1827, 6 B. & C. 625; Kemp v. Neville, 1861, 10 C. B. N. S. 550.] An action will not lie against a Judge for what he doth judicially, though erroneously.-S. C. 1 Mod. 119, 184. False imprisonment.-The defendant pleads specially. The substance of which was, that there was a commission of oyer and tenniner directed to him amongst others, fee. and that before him and the other commissioners Mr. Penn and Mr. Mead, two preachers, were indicted for being at a conventicle; to which indictment they pleaded not guilty ; and this was to be tried by a jury, whereof the plaintiff was one ; and that after the witnesses were sworn and examined in the cause, he and his fellows found the prisoners, Penn arid Mead, not guilty, whereby they were acquitted : et quia the plaintiff male se gesserit in acquitting them both against the direction of the Court in matter of law and against plain evidence, the defendant and the other commissioners then on the Bench fined the jury forty marks a-piece, and for non-payment committed them to Newgate, &c.-The plaintiff replies de injurid sud proprid, absque hoc that he and his fellows acquitted Penn and Mead against evidence: and to this the defendant demurred. Goodfellow, Serjeant, who would have argued for the defendant, said, that he (ft) Eeg. 295. (i) By 20 Geo. 2, c. 37, all sheriffs shall, at the expiration of their office, turn over to the succeeding sheriff, by indenture and schedule, all such writs and process as shall remain in their hands unexecuted, who shall duly execute and return the same, &c. 1036 EASIER TERM, 29 CAR. 2. IN C. B. 2 MOD. 219. would not offer to speak to that point, whether a Judge can fine a jury for giving a verdict contrary to evidence, since the case was so lately and solemnly resolved by all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houlden v Smith
...the Bar in Pidoris case (30 Howell's State Trials, 225, 751); and it has always been the practice to plead specially. In Hamond v. Hmaell (2 Mod. 218), Groenvdt v. Burwell (1 Ld. Raym. 454), and Taaffe v. Downes (3 Moore's Privy Council Cases, 28, note (a)), the defence was specially pleade......
-
Pease and Others against Henry Chaytor, Esquire, and Another
...and probable cause. [He cited Tozer v. Child, in Error (7 E. & B. 377), Garndt v. Ferrand (6 B. & C. 611)j Hamond v. Howell (1 Mod. 184; 2 Mod. 218), there cited.] The statements in the declaration are not equivalent to such an allegation. I Secondly. No action lies against justices for a j......
-
Michael Sirros (Plaintiff Appellant) Moore (First Defendant Respondent) The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (Third defendant Respondent) His Honour Judge Oswell Seawright Macleay (Second Defendant)
...thy rule of judicial immunity as an error of judgment on his part rather than an abuse of jurisdiction. Hammond v. Howell (1 Mod. 119, 184; 2 Mod. 218) is such a case. The judgment in that case proceeded on the express basis that the Court of which the Recorder had been a member (which was ......
-
Henry Edmund Taaffe, Esq., v The Right Hon. William Downes, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland
...act done be out of the jurisdiction of the Judge, then he is not protected. Bushel's case (1 Mod. 119); Hamond v. Howell (1 Mod. 184, and 2 Mod. 218); Miller v. Scare (2 W. Black. 1141). This doctrine was adnaited in Dicas v. Lord Brougham (6 Carring-' ton and Payne, 249 [3 St. Tr. (N.S.) 5......