Warner v Riddiford
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 1858 |
| Date | 12 February 1858 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 140 E.R. 1052
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 6 W. R. 326 (sub. nom. Ward v. Reddifer).
[180] warner, -'Appellant, riddiford, Bespondent. Feb. 12th. 1858. [S.'C. 6 W, R. 326 (sub. nom. Wmdv,. Reddifer^] . . '.,' The defendant, the owner of a beer-house, placed:the plaintiff thereinto carry oh the business as his servant at weekly wages, with an agreement for a month's notice to determine the service. Having given him a week's notice, the defendant made up the account and required the plaintiff to pay him the balance ; and, on the plaintiffs refusal to accede to this request, on the ground 'that he had not received the stipulated month's notice, the defendant brought in a superintendent and a serjeant of police, one of whom, oh the plaintiff's attempting to go up stairs, refused to permit him to do so, and ultimately only allowed him to go accompanied by an officer. After some further - altercation about the money, and the plaintiff's again refusing to hand it over at the request of the superintendent, the latter asked the defendant if he should take him: it did not appear what answer the defendant made, but the officer ò took the plaintiff into custody; and entered a charge of embezzlement against him at the station-house, and afterwards carried him before the magistrates, by whom he was discharged. - In ah action in the county-court for the false imprisonment, ; the judge told the jury that there were three questions for their consideration, - first, whether there was any imprisonment, - secondly, by whom it was committed, - thirdly, whether there was any legal ground for it. Upon the first point, he told them that " to constitute an imprisonment, it was not necessary that the person should be locked up within -four walls, but that, if he was restrained in his freedom of action by another, that was an act of imprisonment, and that the way in which the plaintiff had been constrained in his own house and the restraint put upon his person by refusing him permission to leave the room arid go up stairs in his own house, was in itself an imprisonment, independent of his being conveyed before a magistrate;" Upon the second, "that, if they found the defendant was the moving party in causing :the imprisdhment, he was responsible for it;" and, upon the third, " that the plaintiff, :as tenant1 or as lawful 'occupier, under an agreement not then terminated, of the premises, was not legally liable to be ejected by compulsion and withoufrn'otice, and that, if he refused to leave the house, the defendant could only eject "him by adopting the proper legal proceedings to obtain possession, and that; there was ho evidence ' whatever to -support or justify the charge of embezzlement. "-The jury having found for the plaintiff, ^ - Held, upon an appeal, that, although the latter part of the summing-up (which seemed to assume that there was a tenancy or quasi tenancy) was somewhat inaccurate, it did not amount to a misdirection in poinfrof law.- Seiiible, that the cbu'nty^court judge has (under the 15th section of 13 & 14 Viet. C; 61, and the 145th of the rules of practice issued under the authority of the 19 ft 20 Viefe'c. 108, s: 32), no power to alter or add to an appeal case after it has been agreed on and signed by the parties or by their attorneys. : ' " ' '! This was an action brought^ to j-ecover damages as ; stated in the particulars of the plaintiff's claim, "For that the defendant assaulted the plaintiff and imprisoned and detained him in prison without any reasonable or probable cause." The cause was tried (with, a jury)( in the county cpurt of Wiltshire holden at Swiridon, on the 10th of. November, 1857. _ . -; . . ,.., , 4 C. B.,(N..S.)181. WARNER: V. RIBDIFGRD 1053 The first witness ;for the plaintiff was the plaintiff himself. He stated, that, in the beginning of the:year, the ^defendant, who kept a beer house at New Swindon, proposed to him to come and manage his business there, offering to pay him as wages 30s. a week, or 61, per month,-a month's notice to be given [181] either way; which offer was accepted by the plaintiff, and he accordingly came to New Swindon in April last. He further, stated, that, on the 9th of September last, the defendant (Warner) had said.that he could not:pay him the wages he had hitherto paid; and that, after some, discussion;', the defendant offered the .plaintiff 11. a week, which the plaintiff refused. ."We had," said the plaintiff, "a main bother." He further stated that the defendant and his wife slept under Ms roof; that, on the morrow morning, the defendant.gave.him a.week's notice to leave his service; that he (plaintiff) merely smiled, and said ."thank you;" ;that, on the following Wednesday,^ the 16th of September, the defendant and his wife drove up; that he then told the defendant that he should take no notice of the week's notice which the defendant had given him; that the defendant and one Monk went into the cellar at six o'clock^ and the defendant called the plaintiff to take stock; that the plaintiff refused to have stock taken that night; that they had a* regular bother; that the plaintiff requested Monk to come the following morning, when he said he had promised the defendant to do so; that defendant and his wife slept there that night; that; on the next day, plaintiff was engaged In. making up the books, when the defendant came in with one Vallis; that plaintiff went through with defendant and Vallis in the cellar, and when they came out they began to take account- of glass and cigars; that the keys were in the till; that defendant and Vallis went upstairs to cast up accounts; that they did not call upon plaintiff to know what money he had in hand; that they went out, and he remained as usual; that, between five and six o'clock^ defendant and Vallis came back with the police superintendent and serjeant; that many persons were about; that plaintiff put.the keys of the till in .his pocket, saying [182] they were his yet; that the superintendent said they were come for plaintiff to give up defendant's money, and that plaintiff, then said, "Very well; if Warner will give me; warning, I'll go on the 12th of October, but,,if this:is not done, I'll stick to what J'vegot;" that Mr. Haynes (the superintendent) then said, " Now, Mr. Warner, you are at liberty to break open anything there is in the house;" that, as Warner was going towards the till, as plaintiff thought, to break it open, he (plaintiff) said, "You need not do that, here's the keys;" that defendant pulled out of his pocket a receipt for five weeks, and said, " Thee beest only a weekly servant, and I'll give thee a week's wages, and no more;" that plaintiff then gave them the keys of the till; that they took out the money ; that plaintiff's wife, with the superintendent and defendant went up stairs, and, when they came down, plaintiff was called into: the parlour and asked; for 301. Os. 9d.; that plaintiff said he would not give it without his right, his month's money; that the serjeant watched the plaintiff, and. would not allow him to: go up stairs; that plaintiff went to see his child; that he said to the superintendent, he hoped, if-he was in custody, he would permit him to;go and change his clothes; that one Bullock (the officer) went up with the plaintiff; :that the superintendent took him to:the station-house; that he was in .the station-house-:three:.hours;'and at nine at night was taken before the ^magistrate and bailed ;ò and that Bulloek, the officeiyand Haynes, the superintendent, were there. The plaintiff further stated, that/on the 24th of September; he attended before the magistrate :again, with Mr.; Browne his solicitor; that Mr. Browne, who appeared for him, opened; the case; that Haynes, the superintendent of police, said defendant'did not wish to press ifhe case.; that .the magistrate said there was no case against him,,and he.;was .discharged*.;; that [183] he-paid Mr. Browne 11. 11s, 6d.s witnesses,. 10s., and summons, 3s.;..that,\on;the Saturday;following, defendant wanted -him to go to his: lawyer's to have a receipt for the money he had paid, viz. 301. Os. 9d., deducting the 61. for h'is month's wages andM.eaving::241. Os. 9d.; and that he wished him to go back at 1L per week, which plaintiff refused. On cross-examination, the plaintiff stated^ that, on the 9th of September, he and defendant had a main bother; :that defendant told him to give up the money to Mrs. Warner, and that he (plaintiff) refused; that the stock had been taken; that, on the 9th of: September, the defendant said he could not afford to give plaintiff more than 11. a week; that, on the 16th he (plaintiff) refused to let stock be taken; that he did not recollect swearing that"-night; .that next morning Vallis and defendant came again, and plaintiff went .round the .cellar with them,'; that Vallis did not immediately ask 1054 WARNER' V. REDD-IFORD 4 C. B. (. &.) m. for money, not until plaintiff was called upon for 301. Os. 9d.; that that was after they had taken the cash from the till; that plaintiff produced an account for certain small moneys; that he claimed 61. for a month's wages; that Vallis never said he should require a receipt for four weeks ; thaty in the evening, they said he wanted 301. Os. 9d., and plaintiff said "Very -well, give me my month's wages, and you may do what you like;" that Haynes (the superintendent) said defendant was at liberty to break open the locks in the house; that plaintiff did not hear defendant or any one else tell the police-officer to take him (plaintiff) into custody; that four friends came to him (plaintiff) at the station-house, and he had a talk that night about an action for false imprisonment; that Haynes, advised him to give ;up the money,..-and he refused; that he did not say he " would not give up the money;" that he went to Mr. Browne when he was [184] liberated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Daud; Mohamed Lajan
-
Kishola Antonia Levine, A Minor (by her Guardian and Next Friend Bernadette Olive Levine) Claimant v Kenny Smart Attorney General of Grenada Defendants [ECSC]
..."A restraint by authority to which the Claimant submits may be an imprisonment although he is not actually touched" —Warner v Reddiford [1858] 4 CB 180. 85 I find that there was absolutely no basis for the detention of the Claimant as contended by the Defence in their submissions. 86 "Any t......
-
R (on the application of Jalloh (formerly Jollah)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...same place and there have to be the means of doing so. He cites Grainger v Hill as an illustration of this form of imprisonment; also Warner v Riddiford (1858) 4 CB (NS) 180, 140 ER 1052, where it was held that the claimant was imprisoned when he was refused permission by police officers,......
-
R. v. Smith, (1983) 46 A.R. 111 (NWTSC)
...Hill (1838), 4 Bing. N.C. 212, 132 E.R. 769; Bird v. Jones (1845), 7 Q.B. 742, 115 E.R. 668, Warner v. Riddiford (1858), 4 C.B.N.S. 180, 140 E.R. 1052; Nicholl v. Darley (1828), 2 Y. & J. 398 at p. 405, 148 E.R. 974: Higgins v. MacDonald (1928), 4 D.L.R. 241, 50 Can. C.C. 353, 40 B.C.R.......