Ravenga against Mackintosh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 May 1824 |
| Date | 08 May 1824 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 541
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 D. & R. 187; 2 L. J. K. B. O. S. 137; and at Nisi Prius, 1 Car. & P. 204. Referred to, Johnson v. Emerson, 1871, L. R. 6 Ex. 353.
ravenga against mackintosh. Saturday, May 8th, 1824. It is a good defence to an action for a malicious arrest, that the defendant, when he caused the plaintiff to be arrested, acted boni fide upon the opinion of a legal adviser of competent skill and ability, and believed that he had a good cause of action against the plaintiff. But where it appeared that the party was influenced by an indirect motive in making the arrest, it was held to be properly left to the jury to consider whether he acted bong, fine upon the opinion of his legal adviser, believing that he had a good cause of action. [S. C. 4 D. & R. 187 ; 2 L. J. K. B. 0. S. 137 ; and at Nisi Prius, 1 Car. & P. 204. Referred to, Johnson v. Emerson, 1871, L. R. 6 Ex. 353.] This was an action for a malicious arrest: plea not guilty. At the trial before Abbott C.J. at the London sittings after last Hilary term, the following [694] facts were given in evidence: The defendant, who was an army accoutrement maker, resident in London, had, in January, 1822, made a contract with one Mendez, who then acted as the agent of the Government of Columbia, to supply and ship for the use of that Government a large quantity of arms and accoutrements; the defendant shipped the same, and received in payment of them certain debentures, signed by Mendez, as the agent, and for account of that Government. On the arrival of the goods in South America, the Columbian Government repudiated the contract, alleging that Mendez had exceeded his authority. In February 1823, the plaintiff arrived in this country, vested with the character of accredited agent of the Columbian Government, and soon after his arrival an application was made to him by the defendant to acknowledge the contract made with Mendez, and to confirm the debentures which bad been granted. The plaintiff refused to do this. On the 3d of March the attorney of Mackintosh wrote a letter to Ravenga, stating, that by the laws of this country he was personally liable to pay the debt contracted by the Columbian Government, and that if he did not make some satisfactory arrangement proceedings would be taken against him, which would involve him in difficulties. On the 6th of March, Ravenga's attorney replied to this letter, and desired to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glinski v Mclver
... ... Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause Glinski (A.P.) against McIver, that the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 28th, Wednesday the 29th and ... The clearest statement is that of Bayley, J. in Ravenga v. Mackintosh 2, B. & C. 693 ... He said: "If a party lays all the facts of his case ... ...
-
R v Evans (Peter)
... ... 2 Evans appeals against sentence by leave of single judge ... 3 The appellant was employed as a civilian station ... ...
-
Trevor King v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
...Nevertheless, the advice of counsel, if honestly sought and honestly acted upon, affords a good protection: see Ravenga v. Mackintosh [ 2 B. & C. 693, 697] by Bayley J. So also with a police officer. He is concerned to bring to the trial every man who should be put on trial, but he is not c......
-
Panton v Sherwood
...App. Cas. 247, followed; Hewlett v. Cruchley (1813), 5 Taunt. 277; 128 E.R. 696, considered; Ravenga v. Mackintosh (1824), 2 B. & C. 693; 107 E.R. 541, applied). A police officer who signs an information drafted by the Stipendiary Magistrate, who is also the legal adviser to the Government,......