Norwood v Pitt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 June 1860 |
| Date | 07 June 1860 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 157 E.R. 1401
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 29 L. J. Ex. 127, 6 Jur. (N. S.) 614.
5t&H 802, NORWOOD V. PITT 1401 norwood v. pitt. June 7, I860.-The 41st section of the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c, 30, for consolidating, &c., the laws relating to malicious injuries to property, provides, thai in actions commenced against any person for anything done in pursuance of that Act, though a verdict shall be given for the plaintiff', the plaintiff shall not have costs against the defendant unless the Judge, before whom the trial shall be heard, shall certify his approbation of the action and of the verdict obtaiued therein. On a suggestion entered to deprive a plaintiff of costs under this section :-Held, that it is sufficient for the defendant to shew that he had reasonable ground for believing that an offence had been committed which justified him in giving the plaintiff into custody.-Quare, how far the question whether there was such reasonable ground of belief is for the Court -The defendant having entered a suggestion to deprive the plaintiff' of costs under the above mentioned section, the plaintiff traversed the suggestion. Issue having been joined, the defendant succeeded on the trial -Held, that he was not entitled to any costs of the trial of such issue under the 81st section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, or otherwise [S. C. 29 L. J. Ex. 127 , 6 Jur. (N. S.) 614.] Trespass for imprisoning the plaintiff', and conveying him in custody to a police station. Plea, Payment into Court of 51. [8023 Replication. That the said sum is riot sufficient to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff. The cause was tried before Wightman, J, at the Hertford Spring Assizes, 1859, when the jury found that the sum of 51. paid into Court uas not sufficient to satisfy the claim of the plaintiff, and they assessed the damages, over and abo\e that sum, a.t 151. Afterwards, by leave of the Couit, a suggestion was entered in these words - "The defendant gives the Couit here to understand arid believe that the trespasses in the declaration mentioned, for which this action is commenced and prosecuted against the defendant, were acts done by him in the execution and in pursuance of an aekof parliament made aud passed in the 8th year of the leign of hib late Majesty ting George the Fourth, entitled ' An Act for consolidating and amending the Laws of England relating to malicious injuries to property.' And the defendant further gives the Court to understaud and be informed that the Judge befoie whom the trial f this cause took place (according to the true intent and meaning of the said act of parliament in that behalf) wa,s the Hon. Sir W. Wightman, Knt., and that the said Judge did not nor would, although requested by the plaintiff to do so, certify his approbation of the action or of the verdict therein obtained as aforesaid." The suggestion was traversed as follows :-" That the trespasses in the declaration fnentiooed, for which this action was commenced and prosecuted...
To continue reading
Request your trial