Polley v Fordham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1904 |
| Year | 1904 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Public Authorities' Protection - Limitation of Actions - Magistrate - Improper Conviction - Distress -
A magistrate, having convicted and fined the plaintiff for an offence under the Vaccination Acts, issued a distress warrant in default of payment of the fine, and a distress was put in on the plaintiff's promises accordingly. Subsequently the conviction of the plaintiff was quashed for want of jurisdiction. In an action by the plaintiff against the magistrate for illegal distress:—
Held, that the period limited by s. 1 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, began to run from the entry on the plaintiff's premises, and not from the date of the conviction.
APPEAL from the Shoreditch County Court.
On February 11, 1903, the plaintiff was convicted by the defendant, who was one of the metropolitan police magistrates, for neglecting to have two of his children vaccinated, and was fined 1l. and costs in each case. The plaintiff having failed to pay the fines, the defendant issued a warrant of distress against the goods of the plaintiff, and on April 17, 1903, a distress was put in on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff under protest paid out the distress on April 29.
On July 8 the Divisional Court quashed the convictions on the ground that the information was out of time, the children being twins eighteen months of age at the date of the conviction.F1
On August 26 the plaintiff issued the summons in the present action in the county court, claiming damages from the defendant for an illegal distress.
The county court judge held that the plaintiff's action was out of time and was barred by s. 1, sub-s. aF2, of the
He accordingly entered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.
Kingsbury, for the plaintiff. The county court judge was wrong; the act complained of was the trespass to the plaintiff's goods and not the conviction. The conviction and the distress are quite separate acts. This is plain from s. 3 of the
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John O'Connor v George Alfred Isaacs and Others
...There is, we are informed by Counsel on both sides, no record in the books of any such case. In ( Polley v. Fordham 1904, 2 King's Bench, page 345) Mr Justice Wills said, at page 348, "No such thing was ever heard of as an action for making an order against a person without jurisdiction. I......
-
Re McC. (A Minor)
...of action which can arise is for trespass to the person (unlawful arrest or imprisonment) or trespass to goods (unlawful distress): Polley v. Fordham (No.2) (1904) 68 J.P. 504; O'Connor v. Isaacs [1956] 2 Q.B. 288. 38 But I think the equiparation by Lord Lowry C.J. of an excess of jurisdict......
-
Gawley v Corporation of Belfast
...Before The Lord Chancellor, and FitzGibbon and Holmes, L.JJ. (1) [1905] 1 K. B. 804. (2) [1900] 2 Q. B. 454. (1) 10 A. C. at p. 68. (2) [1904] 2 K. B. 345. (1) 11 A. C. (2) 4 M. & W. 749. (3) 5 Q. B. 747. (4) [1904] 2 K. B. 501. (5) [1905] 2 K. B. 1. (6) [1905] 1 K. B. 804. (1) [1905] 1 K. ......
- Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte