Robinson and Another v Yewens
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 151 E.R. 64
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 7 Dowl. P. C. 377; 2 H. & H. 38; 8 L. J. Ex. 166; 3 Jur. 776.
RoBtNSON AND ANOTHEH v. YiWENH. Exch. of Pleas. 1839.-S., a sheriff's officer, .arrested the defendant, not then having any warrant, and took him to a lock-up house. At that time there was a warrant in the sheriff's office, directed to ianother officer, to arrest the defendant at the suit of the plaintiff. S. went to the sheriff's office, and representing that he had an opportunity of arresting the defendant, got hia own name inserted in that warrant. It appeared that this was in accordance with the practice of the office, and it was sworn that the sheriff ;waa ignorant that the defendant had at. that time been already arrested. S. took the warrant, and arrested the defendant at the suit of the plaintiff:-Held, that the defendant was not entitled to be discharged. [S. C. 7 Dowl. P. C. 377 ; 2 H. & H. 38; 8 L. J. Ex. 166 ; 3 Jur. 776.] In this case Humfrey had obtained a rule, calling on the plaintiff and the sheriff of Middlesex to shew cause why the defendant should not be discharged out of the custody of the Warden of the Fleet Prison, and why the plaintiff, or the sheriff, or one Sioman, one of his officers, should not pay the costs of the arrest and of this application. The fallowing facts appeared upon the affidavits. A warrant to arrest the defendant on a ca. sa. at the suit of the plaintiffs, dated tie 8th of October, 1838, had been delivered to one Nathan, an officer of the sheriff of Middlesex, for execution, the name of Nathan only being inserted in it. On the 3rd of April, 1839, (the warrant being then unexecuted), Sioman, another officer of the Sheriff, happening to meet the defendant in a banking-house, told him he should arredt him, which he did, although the defendant demanded his warrant, and he (ay Which enacts, (inter alia), that if any person or persons shall commence and prosecute any action in any of hig Majesty's Courts at Westminster, or in any other Couftr against any person inhabiting or residing within the city and county of the city of Bristol, or the city and county of the city of Gloucester, for any debt or sum of money due upon contract, promise, specialty, or otherwise, which, upon the trial, shall be found not to amount to the full sum or value of 40s., over and above costs, no judgment shall be etitered upon record upon any such verdict; and if any judgment shalj be entereoj thereon, then such judgment shall be and is hereby declared null and void;; and also the defendant in every such action shall have his costs in the said suitj to b* taxed by the said Court, or their proper officer, where such action shall be tried and paid him by such plaintiff in the said cause; any law or custom to the contrary in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coppinger v Bradley
...Co. 89. Whalley v. PepperENR 7 C. & P. 506. Barratt v. PriceENR 9 Bing. 566. Collins v. YewensENR 10 Ad. & El. 570. Robinson v. YewensENR 5 M. & W. 149; S. C. 7 Dowl. 380. Jackson v. HumphrysENR 1 Salk. 273. Benton v. SuttonUNK 1 B. & P. 24. Rex v. PageENR 7 Price, 616; S. C. B. & B. 308. E......
-
Ex parte William Anthony Freston William Anthony Freston, a Bankrupt
...is recognized and supported by authority; Archbold's Practice (page 723); Barratt v. Price (9 Bing. 566) ; Robinxon v. Yewens (5 M. & W. 149). These cases were examined in Hooper v. Law (6 H. L. Cas. 443), which clearly recognized the distinction. [6203 the lord chancellor, at the close of ......
-
The National Assurance and Investment Association v Best
...only can sue the rescueis, who had warrants in the bailiff's hands: Hodff&s v. Marks (Cro. Jac. 485)." Robvn&on v. [612] Yewens (5 M. & W. 149), Pearson v. Yewens (5 Bing. N. C. 489), and Colb.ni v. Yewens (10 A. & E 570), shews that a bailiff who arrests in a particular suit, is not identi......
-
The Queen against David Jones
...(i)a See Pearson v. Yewens, 5 New Ca. 489, 567 ; Hall v. Hawkins, 4 M. & W. 590; Watson v. Carroll, 4 M. & W. 592; Robinson v. Yewens, 5 M. & W. 149. 10 AD. ft E. 576. THE QUEEN t'. JONES 219 ciently set forth the cause of the commitment, or shew the jurisdiction, of the Ecclesiastical Cour......