Howard v Gosset, Gosset v Howard
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 May 1845 |
| Date | 15 May 1845 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 139
QUEENS BENCH
Reversed in Exchequer Chamber, 10 Q. B. 411; 16 L. J. Q. B. 345; 11 Jur. 750. Not applied, Dale's case, 1881, 6 Q. B. D. 416. Applied, Bradlaugh v. Erskine, 1883, 47 L. T. 622; Dillon v. Balfour, 1887, 20 L. R. Ir. 613; In re Mayo Presentment, [1898] 2 Ir. R. 750.
[359] howard against sir willeam gosskt. [Thursday, May 15th, 1845.] Trespass for assaulting plaintiff, seizing him, compelling him to go along a passage to a certain room, and afterwards along another passage to another room, and then imprisoning him, viz. for two hours then next, &c., and then compelling him to return through the first mentioned passage to the first mentioned room, aud there detaining him, viz. for two hours then next, &c. Plea. That a Parliament waa sitting, and that matters were under discussion in the House of Commons, concerning which the House considered it necessary that plaintiff should be examined at their Bar: that, fur the purpose of procuring his attendance to be there examined concerning them, it was ordered by the House, in pursuance of and according to the ancient usages aud privileges of the House and the law and custom of Parliament, that the plaintiff should attend the said House forthwith, of which he had notice: that he contemptuously refused, and absented himself; and thereupon, and in order to compel plaintiff's attendance at the Bar to be examined, &c., it was ordered by the House, in pursuance of and according, &c., that plaintiff should be sent for and brought before the House in custody of the Serjeant at arms attending the House, and that the Speaker should issue his warrant accordingly : whereupon the Speaker, in pursuance of the aaid order, aud in pursuance of and according, &c., in order that plaintiff might be brought in the custody of the serjeant at arms before the House according to the order, &q. for the purpose aforesaid, by his warrant in that behalf duly made, "after reciting that the House of Commons had, that day, ordered that the plaintiff should be sent for in the custody of the serjeant at arms attending the said House, did require and authorize the serjeant at arms then attending the said House of Commons to take into custody the body of the plaintiff." Averment, that defendant then was the serjeant at arms; that the Speaker duly delivered the warrant to him to be executed; by virtue and in execution of which warrant the defendant, as such serjeant at arms, &c., gently laid his hands on plaintiff to arrest, and did arrest lim, and did then, in order to bring him before the House in execution of and in obedience to tbe warrant, necessarily force and compel plaintiff to go, &c. (as in the declaration), using no unnecessary violence, &c., and did theii necessarily imprison plaintiff, &c., for and during the several times, &c., until defendant could bring plaintiff before the said House of Commons in obedience to the said warrant, the same being reasonable times, &c., using no unnecessary violence, &c. Verification. On demurrer to the plea, Held by the Court of Queen's Bench, Williams J. dissentiente, that the plea shewed no justification. once made, could not be abandoned, and that, at any rate, the facts did not shew an abandonment. (b) On the points not decided by the Court, the following authorities were cited. Rex v. England, 1 Str. 503; Rex v. Great Marloiu, 2 East, 244; Hex v. The Justices of Cambridge, 2 A. & E. 370; Regina v. St. Pancras, 3 Q. B. 347; llegina v. The Justices of Middlesex, 11 A. & E. 809; Regina v. Bridgman, 15 Law J., N. S., Mag. Ca. (Bail Court), 44; stat. 8&9 Viet. c. 110; Com. Dig. Bastard (U, 2); Rex v. Smith, 2 Bulst. 342; Anonymous case, 2 Bulst. 355; Hex v. Burrell, 1 Mod. 20; Pridgeon's case, 1 (W) Jones, 330; Slater's case, Cro. Car. 470; Anon., 1 Ventr. 59 ; Rex v. Tenant, 2 Ld. liay. 1423; Barons v. Lusambe, 3 A. & E. 589, 594; Regina v. Fordham, 11 A. & E. 73; Regina v. Oundle, 3 Q. B. 353, note (a); stats. 7 & 8 Viet. c. 101, 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 12 ; Megina v. St. Anne, Westminster, 8 Q. B. 561, 566 ; Regina v. Great Bolton, 7 Q. B. 387 ; Wickens v. Cox, 4 M. & W. 67 ; Maunder v. Collett, 3 C. B. 554. 140 HOWARD V. OOSSET 10 J. B. 360. By Lord Denman C.J., Williams and Coleridge Js., that the House had jurisdiction to order plaintiff's attendance for the purpose of examination, without informing him of any reason for the order, and, on disobedience, to enforce it by compulsory process. But, by Lord Denman C.J., Coleridge and Wightmati Ja., that the validity of the warrant as a justification to the officer must be judged of by the terms of the warrant as pleaded independently of any thing contained in the order. And that, if the warrant as framed was illegal, the officer was not justified on the ground that he had made the arrest by order of the House. Per Lord Denman C.J., and Coleridge J., Williams J., dubitante: that it did not, on these pleadings, stand admitted that the warrant was framed according to the usages and privileges of the House and the law and custom of Parliament. Per Lord Deurnan C.J, and Coleridge J. The warrant was bad, though purporting to be issued under an order of the House of Commons, because it did not specify any cause for the arrest. Per Lord Denman C.J. and Wightman J. The warrant, as framed, even if valid for the purpose of taking, did not justify any of the alleged trespasses, beyond the taking. Per Williams J. The warrant was not to be examined strictly, like that of an Inferior Court, or justice of the peaee; and, using the latitude of intendment allowed in construing warrants of Superior Courts, and coupling the mandatory part with the recital, it might be understood that the warrant ordered the officer of the House to bring the plaintiff before them for a cause which they had deemed sufficient to authorize sending for him : and for the sufficiency of that cause credit must be given to the House as to a Superior Court. Held by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, reversing the judgment of the Queen's Bench, that, if the warrant had been that of a justice of the peace or of a Court acting under a special statutory authority, the objections would have been fatal. But that the warrant must be construed as process of a Superior Court, not appearing, on the process itself, to be beyond the scope of their jurisdiction : and, so considered, it was sufficient. And that the language of the warrant justified all the alleged trespasses. [Baveraed in Exchequer Chamber, 10 Q. B. 411; 16 L. J. Q. B. 345; 11 Jur. 750. Not applied, Dak's case, 1881, 6 Q. B. D. 416. Applied, Bmdlaiigh v. Erskine, 1883, 47 L. T. 622; Dillon v. Balfmtr, 1887, 20 L. R. lr. 613 ; In re Mayo Presentment, [1898] 2 Ir. E. 750.] Trespass. The declaration stated that defendant, on 6th February, 1840, with force and arms assaulted plaintiff, and then seized and laid hold of him, [360] and forced and compelled him to go in and along a certain passage to a certain room, and afterwards in and along a certain other passage to a certain other room, and then imprisoned plaintiff for a long time, to wit for the space of two hours then next following, and then forced and compelled him to return through and along the first mentioned passage into the said first mentioned room, and there kept and detained him for a further long space of time, to wit for the space of two hours then next following, contrary to law and against the will of plaintiff, whereby plaintiff was greatly exposed and injured in his credit and circumstances; and other wrongs, &c. To plaintiff'* damage of 2001. Plea 1. That, before and at the said time when, &c., and during all the time in the declaration and in this plea mentioned, a Parliament of our Sovereign Lady the Queen was holdezi at Westminster in the county of Middlesex, and was sitting there at the said time when, &c., and during all the time in the declaration and in this plea mentioned : and that, shortly before the said time when, &c., to wit on 27th January A.D. 1840, certain matters and things came on to be discussed and debated, and were under discussion and debate, in the said House of Commons, in respect of and concerning which it was considered by the said House of Commons to be necessary that the plaintiff should be questioned and examined at the Bar of the said House : and thereupon, and for the purpose of procuring the attendance [361] of the plaintiff, to be examined at the Bar of the said House of Commons touching and concerning the matter and things aforesaid, it was afterwards, and before the said time when, &c., to wit on the day and year last aforesaid, ordered by the said House of Commons, in pursuance of and according to the ancient usages and privileges of the said House of Commons and the law and custom of Parliament, that the plaintiff should attend the aaid House of Commons forthwith; of which said order the plaintiff afterwards, and 10 Q. B.SS1 HOWARD V. COSSET 141 before the said time when, &c., to wit on, &c., had notice: that plaintiff did not nor would attend the said House of Commons in obedience to the said order, but wilfully and contemptuously, without any reasonable cause or excuse in that behalf, wholly neglected ajid refused to do so, and disregarded the said order, and also for a long apace of time, to wit from the day and year last aforesaid until the said time when, &c., concealed and absented himself for the purpose of avoiding the attending the aaid House of Commons in obedience to the said order: of all which premises the said House of Commons afterwards, to wit on the 4th day of February in the year aforesaid, was informed and had notice : that, thereupon, and in order to compel the attendance of the plaintiff at the Bar of the said House of Commons, to be questioned and examined there touching and concerning the matters and things aforesaid, it was afterwards, and before the said time when, &c., to wit on the day and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maguire v Ardagh
... ... 1922 KOHN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE IRISH FREE STATE HOWARD V GOSSETT 1845 QB 367 MCGRAIN V DAUGHERTY 273 US 135 ... ...
- The Speaker of Dewan Undangan Negeri of Sarawak "Datuk Amar Mohamad Asfia Awang Nassar" v Ting Tiong Choon & 3 Ors (and 2 Other Appeals)
-
Maguire v Ardagh
...of parliament, was to invest Parliament with considerable inherent powers. This has been described in case law, for example, in Gosset v Howard [1847] 116 ER 158. Parke B. delivered the judgment of the court. The House of Commons having ordered that the plaintiff attend the House he refused......
-
Raja v Van Hoogstraten (No 9)
...sequestrators, as officers of the court who act under the order of the court, are entitled to immunity from suit (see Gosset v. Howard (1845) 10 QB 359 at 453–4). The respondents do not enjoy the same immunity. The pleading in their defence was that the conduct complained of by Tombstone as......