Robert Emery and Daniel Winder Kelly, - Appellants; Edward Binns, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1850 |
| Date | 10 December 1850 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 13 E.R. 855
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT IN JAMAICA.
Mews' Dig. tit. Costs; I. Effect of Country Courts Act; 2. Amount recovered. Approved. The Young James, 1869, L. R. 3 Ad. And E. c. 5.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT IN JAMAICA. ROBERT EMERY and DANIEL WINDER KELLY,-Appellants; EDWARD BINNS,-Respondent* [Dec. 10, 1850]. Plaintiff sued in trespass in the Supreme Court of the Island of Jamaica, laying his damages at 3000, a sum above the limit of the jurisdiction of the Local Courts, in the Island, constituted by the Jamaica Act, 5 Viet., c. 26, and recovered a verdict for 40s. Held First, that the sum recovered by the verdict and sanctioned by the judgment, and not the sum laid in the declaration, was the test to' be applied, to ascertain the right to sue in the Supreme Court, and to entitle the Plaintiff to Supreme Court costs [7 Moo. P.O. 204]. Secondly, that the Plaintiff having recovered by the verdict, a sum not exceeding 40s., he was not entitled to more costs, than damages : and the judgment of the Court, giving Supreme Court costs, reversed [7 Moo. P.C. 204]. In this case, the Respondent brought an action of trespass, for assault and false imprisonment, in the Supreme Court of Judicature, of the Island of Jamaica, [196} against the Appellants, for acts done by them in their capacity of Stipendiary Justices of the Peace. The damages were laid at 3000. The cause was tried at the Assizes, held in the County of Cornwall, before Mr. Justice MacDougall, when the jury found for the Respondent, and assessed the damages at 40s. The questions raised by the appeal were exclusively confined to the, award of costs under this action, and were: First, whether, upon the true construction of the local Statute of Jamaica, 5 Viet., c. 26 (a), with [197] respect to .the Local or Inferior * Present: The Chief Baron (Sir Frederick Pollock), the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas (Sir John Jervis), the Right Hon. T. Pemberton Leigh, and the Right Hon. Sir Edward Ryan. (a) In Jamaica there are Local Courts, called " Common Pleas Courts," having a jurisdiction in civil suits, to the extent of 30, and protected in the exclusive exercise of that jurisdiction by provisions as to costs, contained in the several Island Statutes on the subject. By the Jamaica local Court Act, 5 Viet., c. 26, section 1, jurisdiction! is given over all causes wherein any freehold is not concerned, and in which the original amount claimed does not exceed the value of thirty pounds exclusive of costs. Section 2 enacts " that nothing therein contained shall prevent any Plaintiff or Plaintiffs, if he or they shall think proper, from proceeding in the Supreme Court of the Island, in any action or actions of trespass, or trespass on the case of covenant or debt in specialty, where the original amount sought to be recovered should not exceed the amount thereinbefore provided. And no other causes, wherein any freehold is not concerned to the value thereinbefore mentioned, should be brought against any person within the jurisdiction of the said Courts of Common Pleas in any Court whatsoever." Section 3 enacts " that in all actions thereby declared to be within the jurisdiction of the Courts of Common Pleas, so brought in the Supreme Court as last afore- 855 VII MOORE, 198 EMERY V. BINNS [1850] Courts, therein called " Common Pleas Courts," where a party sues in. trespass in the Supreme Court, laying his damages at a sum above the limits of the jurisdiction of the Local or Common Pleas Courts, but recovering a sum below that limit, the sum, on which his right to the costs of the Supreme Court depends, is to be ruled by the amount of the damage laid in the declaration, or the amount of the damages recovered by the verdict. Secondly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hugh Blanco Applicant/Defendant v Federal Investments Ltd Respondent/Plaintiff [ECSC]
...by the ruling of this Court. 9 Counsel for the applicant quoted the three following cases in support of his application:Emery v. Binns 13 E.R. 855, Brown v. Mchaughan 17 E.R. 117 and In re the Attorney General for the Colony of Victoria 16 E.R. 200. He had however to concede that these were......
- Pillar v Arthur
-
Quinn v M'Kinlay
... ... it bears no relation to a case like Emery v. Binns ( 1 ), where the plaintiff in an action ... ...