Hardy against Ryle, Esq
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1829 |
| Date | 01 January 1829 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 224
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 Man. & Ry. 295; 7 L. J. M. C. O. S. 118. Followed, Radcliffe v. Bartholomew, [1892] 1 Q. B. 163.
hardy against kyle, esq. 1829. Where a commitment under the 4 G. 4, c. 34, s. 3, recited that A. B. had contracted to weave certain pieces of silk goods for C. D. at certain prices agreed upon between them, and had neglected his work after entering upon his said service, wherefore the justice convicted him, and 9B. &C.604. HARDY V. RYLB 225 committed him for one month : Held, that contracting to weave certain goods, as stated in the commitment, was not contracting to serve within the meaning of the 4 G. 4, c. 34, and that the justice had acted without authority. In trespass against him for false imprisonment, it appeared that A. B. was discharged from prison on the 14th of December, and the writ issued on the 14th of June: Held, that the action was commenced in time. [S. C. 4 Man. & Ey. 295 ; 7 L. J. M. C. 0. S. 118. Followed, Eadcliffe v. Bartholomew, [1892] 1 Q. B. 163.] Trespass and false imprisonment. Plea, the general issue. At the trial before Jervis J. at the Chester Summer Assizes 1828, it appeared that the plaintiff, a silk weaver, had been committed to gaol by the defendant, a magistrate of the county, for one month. The plaintiff was discharged out of custody on the 14th of December, and the writ against the defendant was issued on the 14th of June, after due notice. The commitment was directed to all constables, &c. and the keeper of the house of correction at Knutsford ; and was as follows :- " Whereas information and complaint hath been made before me John Kyle, Esquire, one of His Majesty's [604] justices of the peace in and for the said county, by Thomas Hall of Macclesfield, in the said county, silk manufacturer, upon the oath of the said Thomas Hall, against Henry Hardy of Macclesfield aforesaid, silk weaver, that he the said Henry Hardy did contract and agree with him the said Thomas Hall, to weave certain pieces of silk goods at certain prices fixed upon between the said Thomas Hall and Henry Hardy, at his the said Henry Hardy's house in Macclesfield aforesaid, and that he the said Henry Hardy had neglected to fulfil the contract so entered into between them, although he had commenced upon the said work under such contract. And whereas, in pursuance of the statutes in that case made and provided, I have duly examined the proofs and allegations of both the said parties touching the matter of the said complaint, and upon due consideration had thereof, have adjudged and determined that the said Henry Hardy hath in his said service been guilty of certain misconduct and ill behaviour towards the said Thomas Hall, in that he the said Henry Hardy, having contracted with him the said Thomas Hall to weave certain pieces of silk goods at certain prices fixed upon between the said Thomas Hall and Henry Hardy, at his the said Henry Hardy's house in Macelesfield aforesaid, hath neglected to fulfil the contract so entered into between them, although he hath commenced upon the said work under such contract, and hath neglected his work without the leave or consent of the said Thomas Hall; and I do therefore convict him the said Henry Hardy of the said offence, in pursuance of the statute in that case made and provided. These are therefore to command you the said constables and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King (Martin) v Mahony
...1 Q. B. 66. (1) 3 E. & B. 607. (2) 7 E. & B. 697. (3) 6 H. & N., at p. 200. (4) 1 Q. B. 66. (5) 2 H. & N. 219. (6) 7 B. & C. 536. (7) 9 B. & C. 603. (8) 9 B. & C. 628. (9) 22 L. R. Ir. 500. (1) 22 Q. B. D. 345. (2) 15 Q. B. 121. (3) 14 L. T. (N. S) 598. (4) L. R. 2 Q. B. 114. (5) 12 C. B. (......
-
DPP (Clarke) v Stafford
...67. Frew v. Morris (1897) 34 Sc.L.R. 527; 24 R. (Ct. of Sess.) J. 50; 4 S.L.T. 342. Hardy v. Ryle (1829) 9 B. & C. 603; 2 Man. & Ry. 301; 109 E.R. 224. Lester v. Garland (1808) 15 Ves. 248; [1802-13] All E.R. Rep. 436; 33 E.R. 478; 45 Digest (Repl.) 254, 211. McCann v. An Bord Pleanála [199......
-
Young v Higgon
...not privy to the act done, and therefore is within the distinction suggested in Lester v. Garland. Then came the case of Hardy v. Ri/le (9 B. & C. 603 ; 4 M. & R. 295), which was an action against a magistrate for false imprisonment, which, by the 24 Geo. 2, c. 44, s. 8, must be brought wit......
-
Young v Higgon, Esq
...not privy to the act done, and therefore is within the distinction suggested in Lester v. Garland. Then came the case of Hardy v. Ri/le (9 B. & C. 603 ; 4 M. & R. 295), which was an action against a magistrate for false imprisonment, which, by the 24 Geo. 2, c. 44, s. 8, must be brought wit......