Money et Al'. v Leach
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1765 |
| Date | 01 January 1765 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 97 E.R. 1075
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 Bl. 555.
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 et al'. versus leach. 1765. [S. C. 1 Bl. 555.] General warrants illegal. Roll 60. [See Hoye v. Bush, 1840, 2 Scott, N. R. 94 ; 1 Man. & G. 788 ; Dillon v. O'Brien, 1887, 20 L. R. Ir. 320.] Errors having been assigned upon the *bill of exceptions mentioned in page 1622, they now came on to be argued. This was an action of t trespass brought in the Court of Common Pleas by Dryden Leach, against three King's messengers, John Money, James Watson, and Robert Blackraore, far breaking and entering the plaintiff's house, and imprisoning him, without any lawful or probable cause ; to the plaintiff's damage of 20001. The defendants below, pleaded two pleas. The first was the general issue, " not guilty : " on which issue was joined. The other plea (pleaded by leave of the Court) was a special justification, as to the breaking and entering of the plaintiff's dwelling-house, and staying and continuing therein for six hours, and making the assault upon him, and seizing, taking, and imprisoning him, and keeping and detaining him in prison for four days ; as to all which, they say, that before the committing of the supposed trespass, viz. on 19th April 1763, the King made a speech from the throne, &c. in which speech was contained the fallowing declaration, &c. &c. That on the 23d April 1763, a certain seditious and scandalous libel or composition, intitled The North Briton, No. 45, was unlawfully and seditiously composed, printed, and published concerning the King * V. ante, p. 1692. t See the 549th and 559th rolls of C. B. of Mich, term, 4 G. 3, and below, p. 1746, at large. 1076 MONEY V. LEACH 3 B0RR. 1743. and his said speech : in which libel were contained, &c. &c. &e. That the Earl of Halifax was then one of the Privy Council, and one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State ; and that information was given to him of the said publication of the aforesaid libel; and the said libel was then shewn and produced to the said earl; and he thereupon in due manner [1743] issued his warrant in writing under his hand and seal, directed to Nathan Carrington, and these three defendants who were then four of His Majesty's messengers in ordinary ; by which warrant, the said earl did in His Majesty's name authorise and require them, taking a constable to their assistance, to make strict and diligent search for the said authors, printers, and publishers of the aforesaid seditious libel intitled The North Briton, No. 45, April 23d, 1763; and them or any of them having found, to apprehend and seize, together with their papers, and to bring in safe custody before the said earl, to be examined concerning the premises, and to be further dealt with according to law : in the due execution whereof, all mayors, sheriffs, justices of the peace, constables, and all others His said Majesty's messengers, officers civil and military, and loving subjects whom it might concern, were to be aiding and assisting to them the said Nathan Carrington, John Money, James Watson, and Robert Blackmore, as there should be occasion. They further say, that for 44 weeks and upwards before the issuing of the said warrant, certain weekly compositions intitled The North Briton, and respectively numbered, in a progressive order, had been printed and published on Saturday in every week : and that the said seditious libel intitled The North Briton, No. 45, Saturday April 23d, 1763, was one of the said weekly compositions. They say that the plaintiff followed and exercised the art and business of a printer; and did in fact print and cause to be printed one of the said weekly compositions intitled The North Briton; to wit, The North Briton, No. 26, and that after the issuing of the aforesaid warrant and before the committing of the said supposed trespass, to wit, on 27th April 1763, information was given to them the defendants, " that the said Dryden Leach and his servants were the printers of the aforesaid seditious libel intitled The Noi'th Briton, No. 45, Saturday, April 23d, 1763." Whereupon the defendants, being His Majesty's messengers in ordinary as aforesaid, took to their assistance a certain constable, to wit, one Thomas Freeman, who was then a constable of the parish of St. Margaret, Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, to aid them in the execution of the aforesaid warrant; and, together with the said constable entered into the aforesaid dwelling-house of the said Dryden Leach, in which the said Dryden Leach carried on his aforesaid business of a printer, the door thereof being then open, to search for the printers of the said seditious libel, in order to carry them before the said Earl of Halifax, to be examined concerning the same; and thereupon, the said defendants, together with the constable aforesaid, did then and there find, within the [1744] same house, a newly printed copy of one of the said weekly compositions intitled The North Briton, and also an unfinished copy of part of another of the said compositions then also newly printed, and which said newly printed copies were part of a new edition, which the said Dryden Leach and his servants were then and there reprinting, of the aforesaid weekly compositions. Whereupon, the defendants, together with the constable above-named, did gently lay their hands on the said Dryden Leach, and seized and took him into their custody, in order to bring him before the said Earl of Halifax, to be examined concerning the said seditious libel, and in so searching for the printers of the seditious libel, and seizing and taking the said Dryden as aforesaid, did then and there necessarily stay and continue in the said house of the said Dryden for the space of six hours, part of the time in the declaration mentioned. And because the said Earl of Halifax was, during all the said space of four days, part of the aforesaid five days in the said declaration mentioned, employed in other business belonging to his aaid office of Secretary of State, so that the said Dryden Leach could not then or during the said four days be brought before the said earl for the purpose aforesaid, they the said defendants, together with the constable aforesaid, did keep and detain the said Dryden Leach in their custody for the said space of four days, part of the said time in the declaration mentioned, in order to carry him before the said Earl of Halifax, for the purpose aforesaid. They further say, that at the end of the aforesaid four days, and not before, upon the examination of the said Dryden Leach and certain other persons who were then and there examined concerning the premises, it appeared to the said Earl of Halifax, " that the said Dryden Leach did not print the said seditious libel intitled The North Briton, No. 45, Saturday, April the 23d, 1763:" and 3 BURR. 1748. MONEY V. LEACH 1077 thereupon, the said defendants, by the command of the said Earl of Halifax, did then and there release the said Dryden Leach out of their custody, and discharged and set him free from that imprisonment. Which are the same breaking and entering of the aforesaid dwelling-house of the said Dryden Leach, in the declaration mentioned, in which, &c. and staying and continuing therein for the space of six hours, part of the time in the same declaration mentioned; and also as to the making of the aforesaid assault upon the said Dryden Leach and seizing, taking and imprisoning of the said Dryden Leach, and detaining him in prison for the space of four days, part of the said time in the said declaration mentioned, above supposed to have been done by the defendants, whereof the said Dryden hath above complained against them. And thia they are ready to verify. Wherefore they pray judgment, if the said Dryden ought to have or maintain his aforesaid action thereof against them, &c. [1745] The plaintiff replied, as to the said plea in bar as to the breaking and entering the dwelling-house.and staying and continuing there six hours (part of the time in the declaration mentioned,) and also as to the making of the assault upon him, and seizing, taking and imprisoning of him, and keeping and detaining him in prison for four days (part of the time in the declaration mentioned ;) that the defendants, of their own wrong and without the cause by them in their plea alledged, broke and entered his dwelling-house, and staid and continued therein for six hours and made an assault upon him, and seized, took and imprisoned him, and kept and detained him in prison for the four days in plea mentioned (part of the time in the declaration mentioned,) in manner and form as he has above complained against them. And upon this isaue was joined. The cause came on to be tried before Ld. Ch. Just. Pratt, on the 10th of December 1763, at Guildhall: and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff upon both issues ; and gave him damages 4001. besides his costs and charges, &c. On 16th June 1764, judgment was signed for the plaintiff, for 4001. damages, and 511. 16s. 8d. costs. At the trial, a bill of exceptions was tendered and received ; which stated the issues, the coming on to trial, &c. and the evidence, and described a printed paper intitled The North Briton, No. 45, and the information given thereof to the Secretary of State, and his warrant to the defendants below, together with another King's messenger, Nathan Carrington ; and what Mr. Carrington had been told of Mr. Leach's being the printer of it; and their thereupon entering his house, and finding some of the other numbers of the same paper newly printed by him ; and their thereupon taking him into custody, in order to carry him before the Earl of Halifax, one of His Majesty's principal Secretaries of State ; and that he, appearing not to be either author, printer or publisher of the said paper called The North...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Privacy International v Investigatory Powers Tribunal
...the liberty of the subject had justified the grant of exemplary damages. 42 The North Briton seditious libel was further considered in Money v Leach (1765) 3 Burrow 1742, which concerned an action in trespass brought by Leach against three King's messengers who had broken into his home and ......
- Carbone v National Crime Authority
-
Kielley v Carson and Others
...(a) I Moo. P.C.C. 85. (b) 4 Taun. 447. (c) 6 St. Tr. 1269, 1271 ; S.C. 1 Mod. Rep. 144. (d) 2 Ld. Raym. 1105. (e) 19 St. Tr. 1002. ; S.C. 3 Burr. 1742 ; and 1 Bl. W. 554. (f) Tidds Pract. Forms, p. 63. (g) 3 St. Tr. N.S. 943; 5 M. & W. 32. 685] Kielley against Carson, 1841. [686 In addition......
-
Money and Others v Leach
...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 i......