Revenga v Macintosh
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 April 1824 |
| Date | 23 April 1824 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 1163
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
i car ftP. 204. REVENGA V. MACINTOSH 1163 [204] April 23d, 1824 revenga r. macintosh (The defendant had taken the opinion of a special pleader, as to whether the plaintiff was liable for a debt ; whose opinion was favorable to the defendant. The defendant caused the plaintiff to be arrested for it In action for this arrest, charged to be malicious, the jury found for the plaintiff ; and the Court above would not disturb the verdict.) Action for a malicious arrest The plaintiff was the secretary for foreign affairs to the Colombian government, and the defendant an army accoutrement-maker, who had contracted with that government, through their agent, a person named Mendez, for the supply of arms to [205] the amount of £180,000, for which he received debentures. The plaintiff happened to come to England, and the defendant applied to him to ratify the contract; but he refused, saying, that he had no authority from his government to da so. On the 3d of March, 1822, a letter was written to the plaintiff by the defendant's attorney, stating that, by the law of England, he was liable for the debt of his government, and threatening an arrest In consequence of this, on the 4th, the plaintiff's attorney applied to the defendant's attorney to see the documents on which the liability of the plaintiff was supposed to arise ; but the inspection was refused. The affidavit of debt was for £90,000, and the bill of Middlesex for £180,000, indorsed " Bail by affidavit for £90,000, and upwards " The plaintiff was arrested about the 20th of March, and confined in a lock-up house for three or four days, and then removed to the King's Bench prison, where he remained till the 17th of May following, when he was discharged by consent of the defendant's attorney, on bail being put in by two gentlemen, who were not required to ]ustify. Two rules were taken out ior time to declare, and then a peremptory rule to declare. The deiendant then declared for goods sold and money paid, and very soon after took out a rule to discontinue, and paid the costs, as taxed, in the month of December. For the defendant it was proved, that the plaintiff corresponded with Mendez, and in some of his letters spoke of " our necessities " ; but in others, it appeared that he wrote " by order of the President." It was proved also, that a case was laid before a special pleader by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ravenga against Mackintosh
...107 E.R. 541 IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.Ravenga against Mackintosh 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 acti......