Linford against Fitzroy, Esquire
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1849 |
| Date | 01 January 1849 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 1255
QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 3 New Sess. Cas. 438; 18 L. J. M. C. 108; 13 Jur. 303. See Bail Act, 1898, 61 & 62 Vict. c. 7.
[240] linford against fitzroy, esquire. 1849. In an action against a justice for refusing to take bail on a charge of misdemeanor, Held, that defendant's duty in this respect was not merely ministerial, and, therefore, that the action was not sustainable without proof of malice. [S. C. 3 New Sess. Gas. 438; 18 L. J. M. C. 108; 13 Jur. 303. See Bail Act, 1898, 61 & 62 Viet. c. 7.] Case, The declaration charged that defendant, before the committing of the grievances, &c., waa a justice of the peace for the county of Norfolk; and that plaintiff waa, on, &c., committed by defendant, so being such justice, upon a charge of baring assaulted a constable in the execution of his duty. That plaintiff, after hi committal, to wit on 16th February 1846, and on divers other days, &c., by means of one Martha filches, applied to defendant, so being such justice, &c., and offered to defendant, bo being such justice, security of good and sufficient persons, to wit, &c., then being two sufficient bandsmen in that bebalf and then being sufficient persons to be bound and to be bail, and to enter into sufficient bonds and recognizances in that behalf, and then being ready and willing, before defendant, to being such justice, &c., to offer, and who did offer, themselves, in the presence of defendant, so being such justice to be bound for and to be become bail for, and to enter into their sufficient bonds and recognizances for, the appearance of the plaintiff to take his trial on the charge aforesaid. That, although it was the duty of defendant, so being such justice, &c., to have accepted and taken such security, and to have liberated the plaintiff, nevertheless defendant, so being such justice, &c., not regarding his duty, &c., but contriving, &c., absolutely, unlawfully and maliciously, and without reasonable or probable [241] cause or ground whatsoever, refused to take or accept the security so offered as aforesaid, or any other security whatsoever, for the appearance of plaintiff to take his trial on the charge aforesaid, and refuse to liberate plaintiff. Whereby, &c. Pleas 1. Not guilty ("by statute "). Issue thereon. 2. Tender of 51. as abends. Replication: that tba amends tendered were insufficient. Issue thereon. On the trial, before Alderson B., at the Norfolk Summer Assizes 1846, it appeared that the defendant, when asked, at the time of the plaintiff's committal, whether he would take bail, declared absolutely that he would not; and that, some days after the committal, when bail was actually tendered, be refused to take it, and did not assign any reason for his refusal. The jury found that sufficient bail had been tendered, but that defendant did not act maliciously in his refusal to take it, The learned (a) Reported by H. Davison, Esq. 1256...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Creaven v Criminal Assets Bureau
...the first act that the action is brought and the first act is purely ministerial." 115 Some seven years later in 1849 Linford v Fitzroy 116 E.R. 1255 came before the Court of Queens Bench and Lord Denman C.J. gave the Judgment of the Court. The facts of the case were that a Magistrate had r......
-
O'Mahony v Melia
...(Lynch) v. Ballagh [1986] I.R. 203 considered. Cases mentioned in this report:— Cahill v. Sutton [1980] I.R. 269. Linford v. Fitzroy (1849) 13 Q.B. 240; 116 E.R. 1255; 18 L.J.M.C. 108; 13 J.P. 474. The State (Lynch) v. Ballagh [1986] I.R. 203; [1987] I.L.R.M. 65. The People (Director of Pub......
-
Attorney General v Ferguson, Evans, Stubbs and Knowles
...to admit to bail a person charged with an offence, and entitled to be admitted to bail — R v. Badger (1843) 4 QB 468; Linford v. Fitzroy (1849) 13 QB 240. A justice [of the peace(?)] who admits a defendant to bail on insufficient sureties is responsible if the defendant does not appear” (38......