Wood v Leadbitter

[838] wood v. leadbitter. Feb. 22, 1845. - To an action of trespass for assault and false imprisonment, the defendant pleaded, that, at the time of the supposed trespass, the plaintiff was in a close of Lord E., and that the plaintiff, as the servant of Lord E., and by his command, molliter manus imposuit on the plaintiff to'remove him from the said eloae, which was the trespass complained of. The plaintiff replied, that he was in the close by the leave and license o! Lord E. ; which was traversed by the rejoinder. The evidence was, that Lord E. was steward of the Doncaster races ; that tickets of admission to the Grand Stand were issued, with his sanction, and sold for a guinea each, entitling the holders to come into the stand, and the inclosure round it, during the races; that the pkiintiff bought one of the tickets, and was in the incloaure during the races ; that the defendant, by the order of Lord E., desired him to leave it, and, on his refusing to do so, the defendant, after a reasonable time had elapsed for his quitting it, put him out, using no unnecessary violence, but not returning the guinea : -Held, that on this evidence the jury were properly directed to find the 332 WOOD V. LEADBITTER 13M.&W. 839. issue for the defendant. - A right to come and remain for a certain time on the land of another can be granted only by deed ; and a parol license to do so, though money be paid for it, is revocable at any time, and without paying back the money. [S, C. 14 L. J. Ex. 161 ; 9 Jur. 187. Questioned, Lowe v. Adams, [1901] 2 Ch. 598 ; Hurst v. Picture Theatres, Limited, [1915] 1 K. B. 1. Distinguished, Paughan v. frampson, 1875, 33 L. T. 15 ; Sutler v. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Iiaihvay, 1888, 21 Q. B. L). 207; Kerrison v. Smith, [1897] 2 Q. B. 445; London County Council v. Duiidas, [1904] P. 32. Applied, Cornish v. Stubbs, 1870, L. R. 5 C. P. 340; M'Manus v. Cooke, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 681. Referred to, Emits v. Eobins, 1862, 1 H. & C. 302: affirmed 2 H. & C. 410; Wdh v. Kinrjston-wpnn-Hull, 1875, L. E. 10 C. P. 409; Atkinson v. /finr?, 1878, 2 L. R. Ir. 320; Aldin v. Zafimer, [1894] 2 Ch. 437 ; /F&wi v. Tawner, [1901] 1 Ch. 579; Jones v. ^fflri Tanksrwlle, [1909] 2 Ch. 445 ; Millbourn v. Zyw, [1914] 2 Ch. 235.] Trespass for assault and false imprisonment. Plea, that, at the time of the said supposed trespass, the plaintiff was in a certain close of the Earl of Eglintoun, and that the defendant, as the servant of Lord Eglintoun, and by his command, gently laid his hands upon the plaintiff, in order to remove him from the said close, using no unnecessary violence in so doing, which is the same supposed trespass in the declaration mentioned, &c. Replication, that, at the time of the said removal, the plaintiff was in the said close by the leave and license of Lord Eglintoun. Rejoinder, traversing the leave and license, and issue thereon. At the trial, before Rolfe, B., at the Middlesex Sittings after last Trinity Term, the facts appeared to be these : - The Earl of Eglintoun was steward of the Doncaster races, 1843. Tickets for admission to the Grand Stand, which were issued under the authority of the stewards, were sold in the town for a guinea each, and it was understood that they entitled the holders to 'come into the stand, and the inclosure surrounding it, during every day of the races, which lasted four days. The plaintiff purchased one of these tickets, and came into the inclosure on one of the rape daya ; and while the races were going on, the defendant, who was an officer of police, by the order of Lord Eglintoun, desired him to go out of the inclosure, (in consequence of some alleged malpractices of his on a former occasion, connected with the turf), telling him that if he did not do so, force would be used to turn him out. The plaintiff refused to [839] depart, whereupon the defendant, by the order of Lord Eglintoun, took him by the arm and forced him out, using no unnecessary violence. The learned Judge directed the jury, that, assuming the ticket to have been sold to the plaintiff under the sanction of Lord Eglintoun, it still was lawful for Lord Eglintoun, without returning the guinea, and without assigning any reason, to order the plaintiff to quit the inclosure, which, on this record, was admitted to be his property; and that, if the jury were satisfied that notice was given to the plaintiff, requiring him to quit the ground, and that, before he was forcibly removed by the defendant, a reasonable time had elapsed during which he might have gone away voluntarily, then the plaintiff was not, at the time of the removal, on the ground by the leave and license of Lord Eglintoun. Upon this direction, the jury found a verdict for the defendant on this issue. In Michaelmas Term, Jervis obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection ; contending, that, under the circumstances, the license to come into the inclosure during the races, given upon the purchase of the ticket, was not revocable during the races, or, at all events, not without returning the price of the ticket, and therefore that the plaintiff remained there, at the time of the trespass, by the leave and license of Lord Eglintoun. In Hilary Term, (Jan. 17th), cause was shewn against the rale by Kelly, Woitley, Martin, and Peacock; and on subsequent days (Jan. 18th and 21st) ; Jervis, Humfrey, and Petersdorff were heard in support of the rule. The arguments and authorities are so fully stated and considered in the judgment, that it appears to be unnecessary to report them in detail. The following authorities [840] were referred to and commented on : - Termes de la Ley, title " Easement " ; Gale and Whatley on Easements, 18, 33; Bro. Ahr., Licences, pi. 9, 15; Co. Litt. 9 b. ;; 2 Bla. Comm. 20 ; Shep. Touchst. 231 ; Com. Dig., Pleader, (3 M.), 42 ; Duchess 13 X. fiW.841. WOOD V. LEADRITTER 353 of Suffolk's case, 13 H. 7, f. 13; Webb v. Paternoster (2 Roll. Rep. 143, 152 ; Poph. 151; Palmer, 71 : Godb. 282; S. C. nom. Plumer v. WM, Noy, 98), Ilonkins v. Bobbins (2 Ventr. 123, 163), Bradley v. Gill (1 Lutw. 69), Wood v. ia&e (Sayer, 3), ejwi v. Grow (Willes, 195), Mayor of Northampton v. Ward (1 Wils. 107; 2 Str. 1238), Buckmdge v. Ingram (2 Vea. jun. 652), Fentiman v. Smith (4 East, 107), Winter v. Brockwell (8 East, 308), Doe d. # % v. W&wi (11 East, 56), Clifford v. Brandon (2 Camp. 358), Dittham v. J?o// (3 Camp. 524), jTayZev v. loafer.-; (7 Taunt. 374), Jkc v. HagworlUm/hwn (1 B. & Cr. 634; 3 D. & R. 16), Hetolim v. Sfiipjiam (5 B. & C. 222; 7 D. & R. 783), firj/aw v. tf'Ms'&r (8 B. & C. 288 ; 2 Man. fe R. 318), iijr^Ms v. /nflre (7 Bing. 682 ; 5 M. & P. 712), dicker v. C'owper (1 C. M. & R. 418), Gamngtm v. Jioo/s (2 M. & W. 248), Bridges v. Blandiard (1 Ad. & Ell. 536; 4 Ad. & Ell. 176), Bird v. Higginxwi (2 Acl. & Elf. 696 ; 6 Acl. & Ell. 824), Wallix v. Ilarrixmt (4 M. Si W. 538), Thonias v. Marsh (5 C. & P. 596), mUia/nx v. Morrix (8 M. & VV. 488), Wood v. Mauley (11 Ad. & Ell. 34; 3 Per. & D. 5). Cur. adv. vult. The judgment of the Court was now delivered by alderson, B. This was an action tried before my Brother Kolfe at the sittings after last Trinity Term. It was an action for an assault and false imprisonment. The [841] plea (on which alone any question arose) was, that at the time of the alleged trespass the plaintiff was in a certain close of Lord Eglintouii, and the defendant, as the servant of Lord Eglintoun, and by his command, laid his hands upon the plaintiff- in order to remove him from the said close, using no unnecessary violence. Replication, that...