Stevens v The Midland Counties Railway Company and Lander
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 June 1854 |
| Date | 22 June 1854 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 480
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 2 C L. R. 300; 23 L. J. Ex. 328; 18 Jur. 932. Distinguished, Bank of Now South Wales v. Oustom, 1879, 4 A. C. 282 Not followed, Edwards v Midland Railway, 1880, 6 Q B. D. 287; Cornfoot v. Carlton Bank, [1899] 1 Q. B. 392.
stevens v. the midland counties railway company and lander. June 22, 1854.-Quaere, whether an action for a malicious prosecution will he against a corporation aggregate1?-Per Aldersou, B., that it will not [S. C. 2 C L. R. 300 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 328 ; 18 Jur. 932. Distinguished, Bank of New South Wales v. Owston, 1879, 4 A. C. 282 Not followed, Edwards v Midland Railway, 1880, 6 Q B. D. 287; Coinfoot v. Carlton Bank, [1899] 1 Q. B. 392.] This was an action against the defendants for having maliciously, and without reasonable or probable cause, prosecuted the plaintiff on a charge of having feloniously received a piece of tarpaulmg, the proper ty of the company. The defendants pleaded not guilty, upon which issue was joined. At the trial, before Russell Gurney, Esq., at the last Gloucester Assizes, it appeared that several tarpaulings, the property of the defendants (an incorporated compasy) having been lost, the defendant Lander, who acted as the company's supefintendant at Derby, made inquiries upon the subject, and having found a small pdece of tarpaulmg on the premises of the plaintiff, who was a grocer at Cheltenham, iaquired of him how he had obtained it. The plaintiff replied, that he had received it from a man named Biimingham, a carrier in the service of the company, who had given it to him about two years before, for the purpose of covering some sugar casks which Birmingham had brought from the station, saying, at the time, that the tarpaulmg was of no use to the company. This tarpaulmg, which was about a square yard only, had some of the company's letters upon it, which had not been obliterated, and the plaintiff had never made any attempt to conceal it, but had used it on several occasions to cover goods which he was carrying in his cart to the railway station. Birmingham was charged [353] with the larceny of the tarpaulmg, and the plaintiff was called as a witness, but the giarrd jury threw out the bill. Lander then applied for a warrant against the plaintiff for having feloniously received it. This was refused , but he renewed his application, as he said, "to punish some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ocean Gain Shipping Pte Ltd v Owner and/or Charterer of Demise of Vessel Dong Nai Registered at Haiphong Port, Vietnam (The Dong Nai)
- Ocean Gain Shipping Pte Ltd v Pemilik Kapal dan/atau Pencarta Demis Dalam Kapal ""DongNat"" yang di daftar di Pelabuhan Haiphong, Vietnam (The ""Dong Nail"")
-
Deliu v Hong
...Zealand, Tort (online ed.) at [153]. 41 Deliu v Hong, above n 2, at [47]. 42 Above at [67]. 43 Stevens v Midland Counties Railway Co (1854) 10 Exch 352 at 356; (1854) 156 All ER 480 at [356] per Alderson B (Exch); Commercial Union Assurance Co of NZ Ltd v Lamont [1989] 3 NZLR 187 at 202 44 ......
-
Trevor Williamson v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
...that the prosecutor's motives is for a purpose other than bringing a person to justice: Stevens v Midland Counties Railway Company (1854) 10 Exch 352, 356 per Alderson B and Gibbs v Rea [1998] AC 786, 797D. The wrongful motive involves an intention to manipulate or abuse the legal system Cr......
-
Cases referred to in 1989 Part II
...v. The State (1986) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt.61) 538. ................................................ 473 Stevens v. Midland Countries Railway (1854) 10 EX 352. ....................................... 198 Stool of Abinabina v. Chief Kojo Enyimadu (1953) 12 W.A.C.A. 173. ................... 213 Stool......