Herring v Boyle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 1126
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 4 Tyr. 801; 3. L. J. Ex. 344: at Nisi Prius, 6 C. & P. 496.
herring v. boyle. Exch. of Pleas. 1834.-Defendant, a schoolmaster, improperly, and under a claim for money due for schooling, refused to allow the mother of an infant scholar to take her son home with her, and the son was, though frequently demanded by the mother, kept at school during a part of the holidays, but there : was no proof that the infant knew of the demand or denial, or that any restraint had been put upon him; an action of trespass for assault and false imprisonment having been brought by the infant:-Held, that it was not maintainable. [S. C, 4 Tyr. 801 ; 3 L. J. Ex. 344 : at Nisi Prius, 6 C. & P. 490.] Trespass for assault and false imprisonment. Plea, the general issue. At the trial at the Middlesex Sittings in Easter Term before Gurney, B., the following appeared to be fche facts of the case :-The plaintiff, who sued by his next friend, was an infant about ten years old. He was placed by his mother, who was a widow, at a school kepb by the defendant at Stockwell. The terms of the defendant's school were twenty guineas a year, payable quarterly. The first quarter, which became due on the 29th of September, 1833, was duly paid. On the 24th of December in the same year, the plaintiff's mother went, to the school and asked the defendant to permit the plaintiff' to go home with her for a few days. The defendant refused, and would not permit the mother to see her son, and told the mother that he would not allow him to go home, unless the quarter ending on the 25th of December was paid. The mother remonstrated, arid said she would pay the quarter's schooling in a short time, but it was not due until the next day. A few days afterwards, the mother went again to the defendant at his school, and demanded from [378] him to see her son, and be allowed to take him home with her1. The defendant refused. On the 31st of December, the mother went again with a friend, and made the same demand ; but the defendant refused to let her see the plaintiff, or to allow her to take him home, and he thenfclaimed another quarter's schooling, as a few days of the quarter after the 25th of December had then elapsed, and he insisted on keeping the plaintiff until that amount also should be paid. A formal demand was afterwards made, and on a writ of habeas corpus being sued out, the plaintiff was sent home, seventeen days having elapsed after the first demand by his mother. No proof was given that the plaintiff knew of the denial to his mother, nor was there any evidence of any actual restraint uponi him. Ore these facts the learned Baron was of opinion that there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murray v Ministry of Defence
...has been subject to considerable criticism. In the first place it is plainly inconsistent with the decision of the Court of Exchequer in Herring v. Boyle (1834) 1 Cr. M. & R. 377, a decision of a court of equal authority which apparently was not cited to the court. Academic criticism of the......
- Cubillo v Commonwealth
-
Zenaida Go v The Queen [NTR]
...although he does not know that the key has been turned.’ 113 I do not think that the older case of Herring v Boyle (1834) 1 CM and R 377: 149 ER 1126 would be consistent with any present day approach. It does not appear to have been cited in Meering (supra). It was a case where a schoolmast......
-
Boyle v Wiseman
...that the Judge ought to have allowed the defendant to be sworn and examined. He cited Taylor on Evidence, s 323 ; Ahvon v. Fwmval (1 C. M. & R. 377), Sayer v. Glossop (2 Exch. 409), The Attoiney Geneml v. HcuUojf (10 Exch. 84), [Paike, B., referred to Hunter v. Leathley (10 B. & C. 858) Ald......
-
WHAT DOES TORT LAW PROTECT?
...v Ministry of Defence[1988] 1 WLR 692. 31Murray v Ministry of Defence[1988] 1 WLR 692, discussing Herring v Boyle(1834) 1 Cr M & R 377; (1834) 149 ER 1126. 32 By “fundamental”, it is intended that the rights that tort law protects belong to the bedrock of the legal system, that these rights......