Mitchell against Jenkins, Clerk

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date11 November 1833
Date11 November 1833
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 908

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH

Mitchell against Jenkins
Clerk.

S. C. 2 N. & M. 301; 3 L. J. K. B. 35. Adopted, Hicks v. Faulkner, 1882, 8 Q. B. D. 170.

mitchell against jenkins, Clerk. Monday, Nov. llth, 1833. In an action for a malicious arrest, malice is a question of fact for the jury, who are at liberty, but not bound, to infer it from the want of probable cause; and where a creditor had caused his debtor to be arrested for 451., knowing that there was a set-off to the amount of 161. 5s., but instructed the bailiff who made the arrest, to allow the set-off in case the debtor would settle the debt; and the Judge, upon the proof of these facts, was of opinion that there was no probable cause for the arrest, and that there was malice in law, inasmuch as the act of causing the party to be arrested for a larger sum than he owed was wrongful, and therefore told the jury that the only question for them was the amount of damages; the Court granted a new trial, on the ground that it ought to have been left to the jury to find whether there was malice or not. [S. C. 2 N. & M. 301; 3 L. J. K, B. 35. Adopted, Hicks v. Faullcner, 1882, 8 Q. B. D. 170.] Case for maliciously and without any reasonable or probable cause of action against the plaintiff to the amount of 451,, having caused him to be arrested and held to bail for that sum. Plea not guilty, At the trial before Taunton J. at the Summer Assizes for the county of Devon 1832, the following appeared to be the facts of the case :-The plaintiff at Lady-Day 1831 became indebted to the defendant as vicar of Sidmouth in the sum of 451. for one year's composition of tithe. On the 15th of April Jenkins applied by letter for payment of the tithes, and offered to allow to the plaintiff a set-off, if produced and found to be correct. The plaintiff, not [589] having produced any such set-off, Jenkins sued out a latitat indorsed for bail for 451., the-gross amount of his demand, without allowing any deduction. .The sheriffs officer who made the arrest for 451. told Mitchell that he was authorized to allow a deduction of 161. 5s. Mitchell gave a bail bond. On the 16th of July Jenkins's agents wrote the following letter to Mitchell's agents :-" It having been discovered that the defendant was arrested for the sum of 451., the amount of the original debt, without allowing for any set-off, and as you may be defending this cause with reference to the statute 43 Gr. 3, c. 46, s. 3, we are requested by the plaintiff's attorney to state, that the arrest for such sum was without any intention to harass or annoy the defendant, but through an inadvertence, which he regrets. If the defendant, on being allowed his claimed set-off of 161. 5s., and his costs to the present time, will immediately pay the, balance, we are authorized and prepared to receive such balance as a settlement of the action." Mitchell's agents declined the proposition, without offering any other terms of compromise; and upon this the action was discontinued and the costs paid by Jenkins. It was proved on the part of Mitchell that he had a right of set-off, to the amount of 161. 5s. Upon these facts it was contended at the trial, that it was a question for the jury, whether Jenkins had acted bonH fide under a mistake in law. On the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • The "Kiku Pacific"
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 27 April 1999
    ...1 Lloyd's Rep 22 (refd) Margaret Jane, The (1869) LR 2 A & E 345 (folld) Maule, The [1995] 2 HKC 769 (refd) Mitchell v Jenkins (1833) 5 B & Ad 588; 110 ER 908 (distd) Ohm Mariana ex Peony, The [1992] 1 SLR (R) 556; [1992] 2 SLR 623 (distd) Strathnaver, The (1875) 1 App Cas 58 (folld) Victor......
  • Chop Chye Hin Chong v Ng Yeok Seng
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 1934
  • The "Ohm Mariana" ex "Peony"
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 11 March 1992
    ... ... , informing them that the money had been released by the bank against an undertaking by Ng & Co to produce the transfer documents, and warned ... Parke J in Mitchell v Jenkins 18 said: ... I have always understood, since the ... ...
  • The "Vasiliy Golovnin"
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 19 September 2008
    ...need for international uniformity. 127 In The Ohm Mariana, Selvam JC, relying on the decisions in Mitchell v Jenkins (1833) 5 B & Ad 588; 110 ER 908 and The Walter D Wallet, and noting that the cause of action for wrongful arrest was akin to that of malicious prosecution or abuse of legal p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT