Money and Others v Leach
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1779 |
| Date | 01 January 1779 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 96 E.R. 320
COURTS OF WESTMINSTER-HALL
See Hoye v. Bush, 1840, 2 Scott, N. R. 94; 1 Man. & G. 788; Dillon v. O'Brien, 1887, 20 L. R. Ir. 320.
money and others . leach. General warrants are illegal and void. [See Hoye v. Bush, 1840, 2 Scott, N. R. 94; 1 Man. & G. 788; Dillon v. O'Brien, 1887, 20 L. R. Ir. 320.] S. C. 3 Burr. 1742; 19 How. St. Tr. 1002. Error from Common Pleas. Action of trespass and false imprisonment, for breaking and entering the house of the defendant in error (the plaintiff below) and I BLACK. W. 888. TRINITY TERM, 5 GEO. III. K. B. 321 imprisoning him for five days, without any reasonable or probable cause. The defendants below, now plaintiffs in error, pleaded the general issue, and also a special justification, stating His Majesty's speech, 19th April, 1763, and the North Briton, No. 45 (n), 23d April, 1763, highly reflecting on the same, and published by one John Wilkea:-that the Earl of Halifax was then Secretary of State, and a Lord of the Privy Council; and, upon information given him of the said libel, and producing fche same before him, 26th April, 1763, he issued his warrant (0) in writing, under hand and seal, to the defendants and another, being four of His Majesty's messengers in ordinary, requiring them (taking a constable to their assistance) to search for the authors, printers and publishers, of the said seditious and treasonable libel, and to apprehend and seize them, together with their papers : that the plaintiff Leach was a printer, and had printed some former numbers of the North Briton (stating them): that, on 27th April, 1763, the defendants had information, that he was the printer of No. 45; and therefore they, with [566] one Thomas Freeman a constable, did enter the plaintiff's house, the door being open, and search for the printers of the said libel: that they found the plaintiff and his servants reprinting a new edition of the North Britm; whereupon they took him into custody, and kept him four days, till the Earl of Halifax had leisure to examine him : and then, it appearing that he did not print the said No. 45, he was discharged ; which are the same, &c.-Leach replies, de injuria sua propria absque hoc, &c. And thereupon, and upon the general issue aforesaid, issue was joined, and came on to trial, before Pratt, C.J., 29tb November, 1764, at Guildhall: at which time a bill of exceptions was tendered by the defendant's counsel, and on 10th December following, was sealed by the Chief Justice ; stating the proof of the facts in the declaration, and " that the counsel for the defendants, in order to acquit defendants under the general issue, did prove the King's Speech, libel, office of Lord Halifax, information, and warrant to the defendants being His Majesty's messengers (as before stated in their justification), and that it was the long and frequent usage of office to grant and execute such warrants; that they had such grounds of suspicion, and did such acts, &c. as are stated in the said plea;-and that it was proved, that plaintiff was not the author, printer, or publisher, of the said paper, No. 45. Whereupon the counsel for the defendants insisted on the benefit of the stat. 24 Geo. 2, c. 44, for indemnifying constables, &c. acting in obedience to the warrants of justices of the peace; and that the matters aforesaid were conclusive evidence (p), for that purpose and to bar the action of the plaintiff. The counsel for the plaintiff insisted, that neither the defendants nor the Earl of Halifax were within the meaning of the stat. 7 Jac, 1, e. 5, (which allows justices and other officers, to give the special matter in evidence on not guilty), nor of 21 Jac. 1, c. 12, making the former perpetual, nor of 24 Geo. 2, c. 44 (q), nor entitled to the benefit thereof: and that the seizure and imprisonment of the plaintiff were not made or done in obedience to the said warrant, nor had the defendants any authority thereby: that the Chief Justice declared his opinion, that the said matters were not sufficient to bar the plaintiff's [557] action, and, with that direction, left the same to the jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff on both issues, with 4001. damages." Upon which error was brought in this Court (r). De Grey, Solicitor-General, for the plaintiff in error, made three points: 1st, that, under the stat. 7 Jac. 1, c. 5, the defendants had a right to give the special matter in evidence on their plea of not guilty ; or, in other words, that Lord Halifax was a justice of peace under the equity of that statute. 3d, that the special matter so to be given in evidence was a sufficient justification, which includes the legality of the warrant, and the manner of its execution. 3d, that the defendants, being officers in the execution of justice, were excusable, even if the warrant was illegal, the plaintiff not having pursued the directions of stat. 24 Geo. 2, c. 44.-1st, before Edw. 3d there were different species of justices (s). The great officers of State were so, as being incidental to their offices. Secretaries of State are certainly conservators of the peace, ex necessitate rei, being officers as old as the Crown. The Statute Edw. 1st., commented on by Lord Coke, 2 Inst. 556, refers to the seal in custody of the principal secretary : the seal is as old as the Crown : the secretary as old as the seal. They have great powers by prescription, recognized by the Courts of Law, in treason, felony, and even...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- A-G for the Straits Settlements v Pang Ah Yew
-
State of New South Wales v Corbett
...‘Licensing Act’). 73Wilkes v Wood (1763) Lofft 1 [ 98 ER 489]; Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 Wils KB 275 [ 95 ER 807]; Money v Leach (1765) 1 Black W 555 [ 96 ER 74 (1763) Lofft 1 [ 98 ER 489]. 75 (1763) Lofft 1 at 18 [ 98 ER 489 at 498]. 76 (1765) 1 Black W 555 [ 96 ER 320]. 77 (1765) 1 Bla......
-
Smethurst v Commissioner of Police
...(Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018 (Cth). 7 Wilkes v Wood (1763) Lofft 1 [ 98 ER 489]; Money v Leach (1765) 1 Black W 555 [ 96 ER 320]; Entick v Carrington (1765) 2 Wils KB 275 [ 95 ER 8 New South Wales v Corbett (2007) 230 CLR 606 at 632 [104]. 9 (1763) Lofft 1 at 18 [ 98 ER 489......
-
Tughan v Craig
... ... We do not want the Recorder's money or damages from him, but we want to stop him from making observations which will have the effect ... Leach ( 1 ); and in Mostyn v. Fabrigas ( 2 ) he says: “By the law of England if an action is brought ... ...