Savill against Roberts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 1267
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
See S. C. 5 Mod. 394; 87 E. R. 725 (with note).
[208] case 343. savill against roberts. [See S. C. 5 Mod. 394 ; 87 E. E. 725 (with note).] An action on the case lies for maliciously causing a person to be indicted for a riot, of which he was acquitted by verdict.-S. C. 5 Mod. 394, 405. S. C. 1 Salk. 13. S. C. Garth. 416. S. C. 3 Salk. 16. S. C. 1 Ld. Bay. 374. S. C. Ray. Ent. 39G. S. C. Holt, 8, 150, 193. Error of a judgment in an action on the case in the Court of Common Pleas, wherein the plaintiff Roberts declares, that the defendant, maliciously and wickedly intending to oppress the plaintiff, caused him to be maliciously indicted of a riot; for that he and divers other persons did stop a way whereby the defendant used to carry his tithes; on which indictment he appeared, and was acquitted; by which prosecution he was injured in his name, and put to expences in defending himself. On not guilty pleaded, there was a verdict for the plaintiff, and eleven pounds damages; and judgment for the plaintiff; and on this a writ of error brought. The question was, whether this action lies for this malicious prosecution, whereby the plaintiff was put to charges and expences; and the Court of Common Pleas were o£ opinion it did. Holt, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the Court, that judgment ought to be affirmed, that this point, which has been often debated, and of which there had been variety of opinions, might be settled. In order whereunto, it is necessary to consider what are the true grounds and reasons of such actions as these ; and it does appear, that there are three sorts of damages, any one of which is sufficient to support this action. First, damage to his same, if the matter whereof he be accused be scandalous. Secondly, to his person, whereby he is imprisoned. Thirdly, to his property, whereby he is put to charges and expences. The first appears from the case of Barns v. Constantine (a), where it is held, that if an indictment for barratry be preferred, though the indictment be erroneous, or found ignoramus, yet an action for the party lies, because it contains matter of scandal; and this was the case of Sir And. Eenly v. Dr. Burstall (a), where an action upon the case was held good for maliciously indicting the plaintiff, being a justice of peace, for delivering a vagrant out of custody without examination, contrary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peter Willers v Albert Gubay
...80. Damage is a necessary ingredient of the tort. This element of the tort was explained in a dictum of Holt CJ in Saville v Roberts (1698) 12 Mod Rep 208. Holt CJ defined the interests protected by the tort as follows: "there are three sorts of damages, any one of which is sufficient to su......
-
Gregory v Portsmouth City Council
...[1996] 1 A.C. 74, 80. Damage is a necessary ingredient of the tort. This element of the tort was explained in a dictum of Holt C.J. in Savill v. Roberts (1698) 12 Mod. Rep. 208. Holt C.J. defined the interests protected by the tort as follows: "there are three sorts of damages, any one of w......
-
Crawford Adjusters (Cayman) Ltd v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Ltd
...of the grievance specially, so that it may appear to the Court to be manifestly vexatious". Or, in the words of another of the reports, at 12 Mod 208, 88 ER 1267, at p 211, p 1269, "if he shew any special matter, whereby it appears to the court that it was frivolous and vexatious, he shall ......
-
Karagozlu v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
...prosecution, he said this at pages 426H to 427A: "This element of the tort was explained in a dictum of Holt CJ in Savill v Roberts (1698) 12 Mod Rep 208. Holt CJ defined the interest protected by the tort as follows: "there are three sorts of damages, any one of which is sufficient ground ......
-
Tort Law
...3 WLR 477. 50 [2013] 3 WLR 927. 51 (1838) 4 Bing NC 212. 52 (1861) 10 CBNS 592. 53 (1992) 107 ALR 635. 54 See, eg, Savill v Roberts (1698) 12 Mod Rep 208, per Holt CJ, and The Walter D Wallet [1893] PD 202. 55 Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 [20......