Lancaster against Greaves
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1829 |
| Date | 22 June 1829 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 109 E.R. 233
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
7 L. J. M. C. O. S. 116.
lancaster against greaves. Monday, June 22, 1829. The summary jurisdiction given to justices by the 4 G. 4, c. 34, s. 3, extends only to cases where the relation of master and servant exists; and, therefore, where A. had contracted with B. to build a wall for a certain price within a certain time, and having performed part of the work, refused to complete it; this was held not to be within the statute, and that a magistrate who acted upon the complaint of B., and convicted and committed A. to prison, was liable to an action for false imprisonment. [7 L. J. M. C. 0. S. 116.] Trespass and false imprisonment. Plea, not guilty. At the trial before Hullock B., at the Westmoreland Spring Assizes 1828, it appeared that the plaintiff was a waller, and the defendant a magistrate in the county of Westmoreland. In May K. B. xxxviii.-8* 234 LANCASTER V. GREAVES 9B.&C.629. 1827 an information was laid before the defendant by one.!. U., charging that the plaintiff did contract with the said T. U. to serve him from the 21st of October to the 30th of November then last, and did afterwards absent himself from bis service before the term of his contract was completed, in that he the plaintiff did on the 21st of October contract and agree with the said T. U. to make and complete a new carriage road of certain dimensions, according to a written specification, for the sum of 271., [629] and that the said road was to be completed according to such contract on or before the latter end of the month of November then last past; that plaintiff entered upon the contract, performed part of the work, and left the remainder unfinished. Of this offence the defendant convicted him under the statute 4 G. 4, c. 34, s. 3, and committed him to gaol for one month. For the defendant, it was contended, that the conviction was an answer to the action. On the other hand, it was said that the magistrate had no jurisdiction in this case, for that the facts did not bring it within the 4 G. 4, c. 34, s. 3. The learned Judge directed a nonsuit, giving the plaintiff leave to enter a verdict in his favour for 101., the jury having mentioned that as the proper amount of damages, if the plaintiff were entitled to recover. In Easter term following a rule nisi for that purpose was granted ; against which, Courtenay and Aglionby now shewed cause, and contended, that the plaintiff clearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King (Martin) v Mahony
...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. (N. S.) 383. (6) ......
-
Kitchen, an Infant, against Shaw, Esquire
...to serve, &e. The extent to which this last statute will apply has not been decided. Under this Act it was held in Lancaster v. Greaves (9 B. & C. 628), that the relation of master and servant must exist; and in Hardy v. Kyle. (9 B. & C. 603), it was held that contracting to weave certain p......
-
Seth Turner and Others
...the following authorities were referred to: Hardy v. Ryle (9 B. & C. 603); Hex v. Neville (1 B. & Ad. 489); Lancaster v. Greaves (9 B. & C. 628); Kitchen v. s/mw (6 A. & E. 729). (g) On this point, the following authorities were referred to: note, in 1 Smith's Lead. Ca. 181, to Mitchel v. R......
-
Newbould v Coltman and Another
...The following cases beai upon this question Ma-^ey y Johnson (12 East, 67), Lowthar v Ea l of Radnor (8 East, 113), Lancastei v Gteuvet, (9 B & C 628), Mitchell v Foster (\2 A &E 472), Req v Thoiogood (12 A & E 183), Thompson v Inyham (19 L J ^ B 189), Keg v Hindu, (5 Q. B 944), NiclioL v. ......