Shadgett against Clipson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 April 1807 |
| Date | 21 April 1807 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 368
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
See Hoye v. Bush, 1840, 1 Man. & G. 785.
shadgett against clipson. Tuesday, April 21st, 1807. The defendant cannot justify an assault and false imprisonment of A. B. by shewing a latitat issued against C. B., and averring that it was issued against A. B. by the name of C. B., and that they are one and the same person. [See Hoye v. Bush, 1840, 1 Man. & G. 785.] Trespass for assaulting and imprisoning the plaintiff. Plea, that before the time when, &c. viz. on the 25th of June, 46 Geo. 3, one D. Allen sued out a writ of latitat against the plaintiff Josiah Cordeux Shadgett, therein called by the name of John Shadgett, directed to the Sheriff of London, &c.; and so it set out the writ, authorising the sheriff to arrest John Shadgett; which was indorsed for bail in 101.; and averred the delivery of it to the sheriff, who thereupon before the return made his warrant under seal, &c. directed to the defendant Clipson and another, Serjeants at mace, arid thereby commanded them to take the said Josiah Cordeux, therein called by the name of John Shadgett, to answer the said D. Allen in the plea, &e.; which said warrant was delivered to Clipson to be executed, who before the return of the writ arrested the said Josiah Cordeux to answer, &c., which were the trespasses complained of, &c. And then it concluded with an averment that the said Josiah Cordeux Shadgett and John Shadgett in the said writ and warrant [329] mentioned are one and the same person, and not other or different. To this there was a general demurrer, and joinder. Wigley, in support of the plea, said, that the demurrer was joined in this case before the determination of the Court in Dixie v. Scholey (a) in the last term; which he admitted to be directly in point against him. That the only other case upon the subject was Gole v. Hindson (b); but that was a case of process against the goods of the party by a wrong name. Lord Ellenborough C. J. This case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGrath v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
...than the present, because there the plea averred that Aquila Cole and Richard Cole were the same person. So in Shadgett v Clipson (1807) 8 East 328, it was held that a sheriff's officer could not justify an imprisonment of A. B. under a latitat against C. B. though it was averred that A. B.......
-
Binfield against Maxwell
...subse- (a)1 Note of M. and S. (a)2 3 East, 167. (J) 2 Taunt. 399. In addition to Delaney v. Cannon, 10 East, 328, Shadgett v. Clipson, 8 East, 328; and Dring v. Dickenson, 11 East, 225, there cited, see Clarke v, Baker, 13 East, 273. 15 EAST, 161. KEEN V. DORM AY 805 quentfto that of Oakley......
-
Brunskill against Robertson, Esquire
...subsequent to the plea, only shew that he was the person meant to be arrested. Cole v. Hindson (6 T. R. 234), Shadgett v. Glipson (8 East, 328), Scandwer v. Warne (2 Camp. 270), Finch v. Coeken (2 C. M. & R. 196), are in point. If an officer were killed by the party misnamed, in the attempt......
-
Joseph Jarmain the Elder v Hooper, Pilcher, and Heenan
...so invaded :" which, says Mr. Justice Lawrence, evidently shews " that in such cases, the officer is a trespasser.", Shadgeti v. Olipson (8 East, 328), it was held that the defendant could not justify an assault upon, and an imprisonment of, A. B., by shewing a latitat issued against 0. B.,......