Watson v Carroll and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 1557
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 7 Dowl. P. C. 217; 1 H. & H. 427; 8 L. J. Ex. 97; 3 Jur. 149.
watson v. carroll and another. Exch. of Pleas. 1839.-A party privileged from arrest redeundo was arrested on a writ of capias ad respondendum, and applied for and obtained a Judge's order for his discharge in that action, on tbe ground of his privilege. At the time of his arrest, other writs of ca. sa. against him were in the hands of the sheriff:-Held, that the sheriff was justified in detaining him on those writs, notwithstanding notice of the Judge's order. [S. C. 7 Dowl. P. C. 217 ; 1 H. & H. 427 ; 8 L. J. Ex. 97; 3 Jur. 149.] Case. The declaration stated, that before and at the time of the committing of the grievances, &c., the plaintiff [593] had been and was a practising barrister, and the defendants had been and were sheriff of Middlesex, and that the plaintiff, to Tfit. on the 10th of August, 1838, then being such barrister, was present in and attended the Court of Chancery, before the Vice Chancellor, in Lincoln's Inn, in the county aforesaid, for the purpose of being heard as counsel for the defendant in a certain suit, (naming it); and that afterwards, to wit, on the day and year last aforesaid, the plaintiff, then being such barrister, and then having been attending the said Court, (a) See Levi v. (Jlagett, 1 M. & W. 547. 1558 WATSON V. CARROLL 4 M. 6W. 594. was returning to his chamberis- sitimte, fec.; and that the defendants afterwards, and during the time they were suh sheriff, to wit, on &c., when the plaintiff was so returning from the said Court, took- anc' arrested the plaintiff bjr his body,;and then had and detained him the said plaintiff, as such sheriff, by virtue of a certain writ of capias, bearing date &c., issued ?ut of the Exchequer cif PJeas at Westminster, and directed to the defendants, as st^1 sheriff, by which they "were commanded not to omit iv.c., but to take the plaintft and safely keep him until he should have given bail, or made deposit, £c., in an acfon on promises at bhra suit of Clarke and Another, or till the plaintiff should by other lawful means be Cljaeharged from their custody (indorsed to take bail for 301. ano. upwards); and fe'nat afterwards, to wit, on the llth day of August, 1838, by a cer^n order of Sir fjohn Taylor Coleridge, Knight, one of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, n ]de in the said last mentioned action, bearing date on the day ana year last afor/esaid, it was ordered that the plaintiff should be discharged, as to tie last mentioned action, out of the custody of the defendants as such sheriff, &e., tte plaintiff Caving been arrested on returning from the Court of Chancery to his chambers; of Y-vhich order, and of its having been made on the ground of the plaintiff havinj^been p.rivileged from arrest as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newton, Esquire, against Constable, Baronet, C. Bailey, Gregg, and T. Bailey
...212), Owner v. Ptilii*j (4 B. & C. 26), Saxon v. Castle (6 A. & E. 652), are instances. The principle was assumed in Watson v. Carroll (4 M. & W. 592). Independently of authority, it is clear that an action must lie for damage inflicted by an illegal act. Kelly, in reply. Whalley v. Pepper ......
-
The Queen against David Jones
...to report this case more fully. (i)a See Pearson v. Yewens, 5 New Ca. 489, 567 ; Hall v. Hawkins, 4 M. & W. 590; Watson v. Carroll, 4 M. & W. 592; Robinson v. Yewens, 5 M. & W. 149. 10 AD. ft E. 576. THE QUEEN t'. JONES 219 ciently set forth the cause of the commitment, or shew the jurisdic......