Watson v Bodell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 April 1845 |
| Date | 18 April 1845 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 388
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 14 L. J. Ex. 281; 9 Jur. 626.
[57] watson v. bodell. April 18, 1845.-The plaintiff, being a debtor to a bankrupt's estate, was summoned to appear and be examined before the District Court of Bankruptcy in which the fiat was prosecuted ; but, refusing to come, was arrested by the defendant, the messenger of the Court, under a warrant of the commissioner, and brought up in custody to be examined, lie thereupon submitted to be examined, and at the conclusion of his examination, the commissioner aaid that he was "discharged on payment of the costs incurred in bringing him up," and a memorandum to that effect was indorsed on the warrant. The defendant in consequence detained the plaintiff until the costs incurred in bringing him up were taxed, and paid by him under protest:-Held, first, that the above memorandum amounted to an order to detain the plaintiff until the costs were paid.-Secondly, that the commissioner bad no jurisdiction under the bankrupt acts to make such an order, and would have been liable to the plaintiff in an action of trespass for the imprisonment under it, and therefore that the defendant, who must be assumed to have known of such want of jurisdiction, was also liable.-Semble, that, if the commissioner had had jurisdiction to commit the plaintiff, the defendant would have been protected, though he had no warrant under the hand and seal of the commissioner. [S. C. 14 L. J. Ex. 281 ; 9 Jur. 626.] Trespass for assaulting and imprisoning the plaintiff, and keeping and detaining him in prison contrary to law, whereby he was not only greatly hurt &c., but was obliged and compelled, in order to obtain his discharge, to pay the sum of 8, 10s., and! was also put to clivers other costs and expenses, &c. Plea, not guilty, by statute. At the trial, before Coltman, J., at the last Summer Assizes for the county of Northampton, it appeared that this was an action brought against the messenger of the Birmingham District Court of Bankruptcy, for imprisoning the plaintiff under the following circumstances :-A fiat in bankruptcy having issued against Messrs. C4oddard, bankers, of Market Harborough, the plaintiff, who was a debtor to the bankrupts' estate, was duly summoned to attend and give evidence as a witness before the above-mentioned court of bankruptcy, in which the fiat was prosecuted; but the plaintiff' refusing to came, the commissioner issued a warrant, directed to the defendant, ordering him to arrest the plaintiff, and bring him before him (the commissioner) in order to be examined. The defendant accordingly arrested the plaintiff, and brought him before th& commissioner, and he then duly submitted himself to examination. At the conclusion of his examination, the commissioner ordered him to be discharged out of custody on payment of the costs incurred in bringing him up, and a memorandum to that effect was indorsed upon [58] the warrant; but the seal of the commissioner was; not affixed to this memorandum. The defendant refused to permit the plaintiff to depart until these costs were taxed and paid, and detained him for that purpose for an hour and a half; and on payment of the amount found due on taxation, viz. 81. 10s. (which was done under protest), permitted him to depart. The learned Judge thought this detention of the plaintiff, till payment of the costs, was illegal, and the jury found a verdict for the sum paid, and 40s. damages; but;the learned Judge gave the defendant leave to move to enter a verdict for him. Humfrey, in Michaelmas Term last, obtained a rule accordingly; against which Whitehurst and Mellor shewed cause at the sittings after Hilary Term (Feb. 20 and 21). The commissioner had no authority to make an order for the plaintiff's detention until the costs were paid. It will be contended on the other side, that he MM. &W.S9, WATSON V. BODELL 389 was authorized to make this order under the 34th section of the (1 Geo. 4, c. 16, or the 69th section of the 5 & 6 Viet. c. 122 ; but no such power is really given by those statutes. By the 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, a. 33, it ia enacted, "that it shall be lawful for the commissioners, by writing under their hands, to summon before them any persoti known or suspected to have any of the estate of the bankrupt iti his possession, or who is supposed to be indebted to the bankrupt, or any person whom the commissioners believe capable of giving information concerning the person, trade, dealings, or estate of such bankrupt, &c. ; and if such person so summoned as aforesaid shall not come before the commissioners at the time appointed, having no lawful impediment, &q., it shall be lawful for the said commissioners, by warrant under their hands and seals, to authorize arid direct the person or persons therein named for that purpose, to apprehend and [59] arrest such person, and bring him before them to be examined as aforesaid." But when he is so brought up, and has submitted to be examined, the warrant is at an end. Then the .'!4th section enacts, " that if any such person shall refuse to be sworn, or answer lawful questions, the commissioners may, by warrant under their hands and seals, commit him to gaol until he submits," &c. Therefore it is upon his refusing to be sworn, and to answer, that be is to be committed again : and a fresh warrant is to be granted, which shews that he is no longer in custody under the former one. The summons is spent, and the warrant is spent, as soon as the witness is brought there to be examined. There is no question here as to the plaintiff's examination having been finished, as the commissioner had ordered him to be discharged. But that order for his discharge had no operation whatever, for the plaintiff was ipso facto discharged on ths examination being concluded. Indeed, the fact of his appearing there to be examined was sufficient for this purpose. So, in the case of a subpoena, where the witness makes his appearance in the box and is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houlden v Smith
...scope of bis special jurisdiction, given him by the statute, is void ; and the Judge who made it is liable in trespass; Watson v. Bodell (14 M. & W. 57), Miller v. Seare (2 W. Bl. 1141). There is a class of cases, of which Thomas v. Hudson (d) is one, which decide that an officer, obeying t......
-
Houlden v Smith
...(T.) Jones, 214. (b) 2 Lutw. Appendix, 1566. (c) 3 Bing. 78. (d) 8 East, 113, 119. (e) 1 Vent. 236. ( f) 1 Q. B. 18. (g) 1 Q. B. 3. (h) 14 M. & W. 57, 70, 71. (i) 3 Camp. 388. ( j) 2 Str 993. (k) 2 W. Bl. 1141. (1) 3 B. & C. 649, 657. (no 1 B. & C. 163. (n) Hardres, 480. (o) 6 M. & W. 739. ......
-
Pease and Others against Henry Chaytor, Esquire, and Another
...which constituted the defect of their jurisdiction. It was in mistake of law, Houlden v. Smith (14 Q. B. 841, 852), Watson v. Bodell (14 M. & W. 57), that they acted in deciding against the validity of the objections made by the plaintiff's, and they could not give themselves jurisdiction b......
-
Graham and Another, Assignees of John Barugh, a Bankrupt v Furber
...render himself liable to an action if he make an order not within the scope of the jurisdiction so given to him (see Watson v. Bodell, 14 M. & W. 57): reflecting attentively upon these points, I feel bound, in the discharge of my duty, but with the greatest deference and respect to higher a......