Sarah Parton against Joseph Williams, John Phipps, Benjamin Gough, and Richard Cooper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 1820 |
| Date | 24 January 1820 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 684
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[330] saeah parton against joseph williams, john phipps, benjamin gough, AND richard cooper. Monday, January 24th, 1820. A constable acting under a warrant commanding him to take the goods of A., takes the goods of B., believing them to belong to A.: Held, that he was entitled to the protection of the stat. 24 G. 2, c. 44, s. 8, and that an action against him must be brought within six calendar months. Trespass for taking plaintiff's goods and chattels : plea, not guilty. At the trial before Eichardson J., at the last Salop Assizes, the material question of fact was, whether the property seized, which was the stock of ,a farm at Little Wenlock, belonged to the plaintiff, who was the widow of a former lessee, or to William Parton, her eldest son. The jury, after much contradictory evidence, found a verdict for the plaintiff. It appeared that William Parton, having served the office of overseer, was 1391. in arrear, upon the balance of accounts. The two first-named defendants, Williams and Phipps, were the succeeding overseers. The goods in question were seized in September, 1816, under a warrant of distress issued by two justices. The defendant Gough was constable of Little Wenlock, and the defendant Cooper acted in aid of the other three. It was objected at the trial, that the action could not be supported: first, because it had not been brought within six calendar months after the act committed; and secondly, because there had not been any previous demand of a copy of the warrant. The learned Judge reserved these points; and in last Michaelmas term, a rule nisi for entering a nonsuit was obtained on the former ground only, the Court being clearly of opinion, that the constable, not having acted in obedience to the warrant, which directed him to [331] take the goods of William Parton only, the magistrate could not be responsible, and therefore there was no necessity for demanding a copy of the warrant. Jervis, W. E. Taunton, and Puller, now shewed cause. This case is not within the 24 G. 2, c. 44, s. 8; for the constable, here, was not acting in obedience to the warrant of any magistrate. By section 6 of that statute, no action is to be brought against any justice, constable, headborough, or other officer, or against any person or persons acting by his order and in his aid, for any thing done in obedience to any warrant under the hand or seal of any justice of the peace, until demand hath been made of the perusal or copy of the warrant, &c; and it then directs, that if any action shall afterwards be brought against such constable, without making the justice a defendant, the constable, upon producing the warrant at the trial, shall be entitled to a verdict, notwithstanding the defect of jurisdiction in the justice: and that, if the action be brought jointly against the justice and the constable, then, on proof of the warrant, the jury shall find for the constable, notwithstanding the defect of jurisdiction. The 8th section then enacts, that no action shall be brought against any justice of the peace for any thing done in the.execution of his office ; or against any constable, head-borough, or other officer or person acting as aforesaid, unless commenced within six calendar months after the act committed. Now, the words "acting as aforesaid," refer to the words in the former section, that is, " acting in obedience to the warrant of a magistrate;" and those words must be considered as incorporated in the 8th section. It [332] is clear, in this case, that the defendants did not act in obedience to the warrant of any magistrate. They are, consequently, not within the meaning of the 8th section; and the action is well brought after a lapse of six months. Money v. Leach (3 Burr. 1742), Bell v. Oakley (2 M. &. S. 259), and Milton v. Green (5 East, 3 B. & ALD. 333. PARTON V.. WILLIAMS 685 233), are authorities to shew that constables and other officers are not entitled to the protection of the statute, unless they act in obedience to the warrant of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Creagh v Gamble
...602. Welfare v. L. B. Railway Co.ELR L. R. 4 Q. B. 693. Mersey Docks Trustees v. GibbsELR L. R. 1 H. L. 93, 111. Parton v. WilliamsENR 3 B. & Ald. 330. Cook v. NethercoteENR 6 C. & P. 741. Rex v. WhalleyENR 7 C. & P. 245. Rex v. Patience Ibid. 775. Rex v. WeirENR 1 B. & C. 288. Hoye v. Bush......
-
Smith v Wiltshire and Others
...(2 B, & P. 158) as expressly in point; and contended that, unless the Plaintiff was bound down by the last case of Parton v. Williams (3 B. & A. 330), the previous cases of Money v. Leach (3 Burr. 1742), Milton v. Green (5 East, 233), Bell v. Oakley (2 M. & S. 259), Postlethmaite v. Gibsmi ......
-
Shee v Abbott
...(2 B, & P. 158) as expressly in point; and contended that, unless the Plaintiff was bound down by the last case of Parton v. Williams (3 B. & A. 330), the previous cases of Money v. Leach (3 Burr. 1742), Milton v. Green (5 East, 233), Bell v. Oakley (2 M. & S. 259), Postlethmaite v. Gibsmi ......
-
G. Smith the Younger against B. Shaw, Treasurer of the Commercial Dock Company
...is established by Gaby v. The Wilts and Berks Canal Company (3 M. & S. 580), Theobald v. Crichmore (1 B. & A. 227), Parian-v. Williams (3 B. & A. 330); and Smith v. Wiltshire (2 Brod. & B. 619), and Cooke v. Leonard (6 B. & C. 351), establish the same point as to constables and other person......