Williams and Jones and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1815 |
| Date | 01 January 1815 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 95 E.R. 193
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, AT WESTMINSTER
CAB. T. HARD.299. TRINITY TEEM, 9 GEO. II. 193 williams and jones and others. One cannot justify a battery by barely shewing an arrest. 2 Stra. 1049, [but not so full]. Trespass for entering defendant's yard and breaking and entering his stable, and carrying away divers goods and chattels, viz. seven horses; and for an assault, battery and imprisonment of the plaintiff: defendants, as to breaking and entering the plaintiffs stable, justify; for that plaintiff detained in his stable seven horses or geldings of defendant Jones; and he, at a Court of our lord the King in his compter holden before John Salter, then Sheriff of London, according to the custom of the city, levied a plaint for detaining the said goods ; and afterwards the said sheriff commanded Chamberlain, another defendant, who was Serjeant at mace, and a [299] minister of the said Court, to appraise the said goods, and to return them to the plaintiff; and the said Serjeant at mace, and the defendant as his assistant, entered into tbe said yard, which was the only way to the said stable, and took the horses and delivered to defendant Jones. And as to the assault, battery and imprisonment they justify also; for that the defendant Jones sued out a capias ad respondendum against the plaintiff, out of the Court of Common Pleas, directed to and delivered to the Sheriffs of London; whereupon the sheriff issued a warrant to the defendant Chamberlain, one of the Serjeants of mace, who by virtue thereof arrested the plaintiff, and detained him in custody for six hours, at the request of defendant Jones, who was plaintiff in the said writ, which is the same trespass and assault, &c. to which plea plaintiff demurred generally. Barnardiston, for plaintiff last term, took several exceptions to the first part of the justification, viz. 1st exception, for that the Court holden before the sheriff, is not said to be according to the custom. 2d exception, that the plaintiff to return seven horses or geldings, is too uncertain, Allen, 32, Moore and Clipsam. 3d exception, that it does not appear that these horses, when taken, were within the jurisdiction of the Sheriffs Court, and precepts of Inferior Courts must be executed within the jurisdiction. 4th exception, that plaintiff levied before J. S. Sheriff of London, is bad, because the Court will take notice there are two persons that are sheriffs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v Pringle
...that for a battery there must be either an intention to harm or overt hostility. 12Perhaps the most technical of the old cases is Williams v Jones (1736) Cas. 7 Hard 299 (95 ER 193.) The report bristles with pleading points especially on the subject of what makes an arrest lawful. What it d......
-
Cooper v Le Blanc
...362. Skinner, 595. Comberbach, 344, and 5 Mod. 118. See also Valhntine and Fawcet, Trin. ante, 138. 192 TRINITY TERM, 9 GEO. II. CAS. T. HARD. 298. Lord Hardwicke, C.J. We are of opinion, that the Court cannot ward any writ of enquiry in this case; it depends entirely on the stat. 9 Ann. c.......
-
Robinson v Owen and Police Commissioner
...(9)Williams v. Humphrey, The Times, February 12th, 1975, unreported, considered. (10)Williams v. Jones (1736), Cas. 7 Hard 299; 95 E.R. 193, referred to. (11)Wilson v. Pringle, [1987] Q.B. 237; [1986] 2 All E.R. 440, considered. Legislation construed: Police Law (2010 Revision), s.6(1): The......
-
R. v. Morrow (J.C.), (2009) 471 A.R. 177 (PC)
...refd to. [para. 55]. Cole v. Turner (1704), 6 Mod. 149; 87 E.R. 907, refd to. [para. 56]. Williams v. Jones (1736), Lee temp. Hard. 298; 95 E.R. 193, refd to. [para. R. v. Sutton, [1977] 3 All E.R. 476 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60]. Collins v. Wilcock, [1984] 3 All E.R. 374 (Q.B.), refd to. [......
-
The Need to Kill Off Zombie Law
...Sutton (1977) 66 Cr App R 21 CA (Crim Div).61. Faulkner vTalbot (1981) 74 Cr App R 1 DC.62. Williams vJones (1736) Cas T Hard 299, 301, 95 Eng Rep 193, Court of Common Pleas, 194 (Lord Hardwicke CJ). See morerecently B(MA) [2013] EWCA Crim 3; [2013] 1 Cr App R 36 CA (Crim Div) and Brown [19......
-
Qualified Immunity and Statutory Interpretation
...(1697) 91 Eng. Rep. 1050 (K.B.); 1 Lord Raymond 229. 164. Id. at 1051. 165. Williams v. Jones, (1736) 95 Eng. Rep. 193 (K.B.) 194; Cases Temp. Hardwicke 298. 166. Though perhaps they provide a glimpse of what would develop into the purpose principle in 18th century cases. See infra Part III......