Annette v Osborne

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 29 May 1840
• Date: 29 May 1840
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

QUEEN'S BENCH

ANNETTE

and

OSBORNE.

Rex v. WoolmerENR 1 Moody C. C. 334, 336.

Rex v. FordENR Russ. & Ry. 329.

Samuel v. PayneENR 1 Doug. 359.

Beckwith v. PhilbyENR 6 B. & C. 6 35.

Duvisv. RusselENR 5 Bing. 354.

Rex v. DinglerENR 2 Leach, C. C. 562.

Ledwith v. Catchpole Holt's, N. P. C. 483, note.

Rex v. Wilkes 2 Wils. 158.

Rourke v. Pepper S. & B. 355.

Cox v. ColeridgeENR 1 B. & C. 50.

Atkinson v. Carty 1 I. & S. 387.

Hutchinson v. Lowndes 1 Nev. & Man. 676, 7 Car. & Pay. 542, 546.

Davis v. CapperENR 10 B. & C. 32.S

Rex v. DerbyENR Fortescue, 142.

Com. Dig. Imprisonment, H. 6 ; Hayes, 474.

Arbuckle v. Taylor 3 Dow. P. C. 183.

Wright v. CourtHRCENR 6 D. & R. 623, and 4 B. & C. 596.

Reynolds v. Kennedy 1 Wils. 232.

Johnson v. SuttonENR 1 T. R. 545.

Barker v. GreenENR 2 Bing. 317.

Ledwith v. Catchpole Cald. 291; and Holt's N. P. C. 483.

Savage v. Tatam Co. Eliz. 829.

Justices of LeicesterHRCENR 9 D, & R. 772, and 7 B. & C. 12.

Rex v. LoxdaleENR 1 Burr. 447.

Rex v. LambENR 2 Leach, C. C. 552.

FELONY ARREST FALSE IMPRISONMENT REASONABLE GROUNDS OF SUSPICION BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

TRINITY TERM, THIRD VICTORIA. 31T BURTON" J/ aild-ORAMPTOS, J., .'eollowrqd the jadgmnAt of, the; 18404 Court.. - r PERRIN0.7. I concur with the judgment of the Court as pronounced by my Loan CHIEF JUSTICE ; but with respect to the second plea, I wish to observe, that, in my opinion, the prayer for a return is proper ; and I foliar:I-that opinion on the following statement of the law on this 'subject,. as laid down by Chief Baron Gilbert-" When the defendant, instead of an "avowry, pleads to the writ of replevin, in some eases he shall have a " return without any avowry or conuzance. And in order to settle this, "it will be necessary to take up a distinction already observed, between "pleas that disaffirm property in the plaintiff, and pleas that admit " property in the plaintiff. As if the defendant in the replevin pleads "property in the beasts himself, or in a stranger (whether it be pleaded "in abatement of the writ, in bar of the action, or in justification if the " defendant prevails in it, he shall have a return without an avowry; "because, if these pleas be true, they destroy all right of. complaint in the " plaintiff for the capture and detention ; and if the plaintiff bath nn "right to the writ of replevin in the present form, nor under any other, "he ought to have no benefit for his unjust complaint ; and, therefore, "the Court must award restitution of the beasts to the defendant, out " of whose possession they were taken by the replevin;" Gilbert 04 Replevin, 209. So here, the defendant having pleaded property in himself, and a right of possession at the time of the issuing of the writ of replevin, the Court must award a return, and the prayer, to that effect is proper.. Friday, M9 29th. FELONY-ARREST--FALSE IMPRISONMENT-REASONÂÂABLE GROUNDS OF SUSPICIONHULL OF EXCEPTIONS. ANNETTE V. OSBORNE. IN this case the question arose on a bill of exceptions taken to the A party was charge of Mr. Justice TORRENS, on the trial of an action of trespass for magistrate on arrested by a false imprisonment at the last Spring Assizes for the county Armagh suspicion of felony who The material facts of the case, as they were stated in evidence, were sent him in the custody of a policeman to the house of a person, who could not leave his bed, for the purpose of identification, and with the orders that in the event of his being identified he was to be taken from thence to gaol. The prisoner having been identified, was, in accordance with the foregoing orders, committed to gaol, and afterwards acquitted by a jury of the charge. ft 11. that in an action against the magistrate for false imprisonment, the jury were rightly charged,-that the conduct of tile magistfate was illegal. 'Held; also, that 'howl fides in the mind of the magistrate was no justification. '318 ' CASTS' `IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH. as `follows ;-A robbery, attended with personal violence, having been committed on the 9th of December 1837, in the house of a woman of -the -name of Anne Lennon, in the neighbourhood of Portadown, in the = county of Armagh, on the 14th day of the same month, the police came to the residence of a person of the name of Robert Neill, and arrested him for the felony. The-plaintiff accompained the said Neill, and at his request, to Portadown, for the purpose of offering himself as bail for him ; and they were brought before the defendant, who was the stipendiary magistrate for the district. The defendant on that occasion asked the plaintiff who he was; and on his stating his name and residence he Was informed by the defendant, after some private conversation with the police, that he was to consider himself a prisoner also, and that he would send him to gaol, as agreeing with the description that bad been given of the man who had wounded Felix Lennon, one of the sons of the said Anne Lennon„ at the aforesaid attack and robbery. He was accordingly, shortly afterwards, sent in the custody of a policeman to the house of Felix Lennon (who was confined to his bed by the wounds he bad received on the aforesaid occasion), for the purpose of identifiÂÂcation by him, and with the order, that in the event of his being identified by him, he should be straightway taken from thence and lodged in the gaol of Armagh. It appeared that the plaintiff was identified by Felix Lennon as the person who had,wounded him on the night of the robbery, and accordingly be was handcuffed by the policeman, and conveyed to Armagh (which was at the distance of twelve miles from Portadown), in pursuance of the aforesaid orders of the defendant. On the plaintiff being brought to the gaol, the gaoler refused to receive him, as there was no written warrant for his committal ; but in the course of the same evening of the 14th of December, a warrant of committal for further examination having been obtained from Mr. Dobbin, who was One of the resident magistrates for the town of Armagh, he was received into the gaol. On the 16th of December a warrant of committal in the usual form, and signed by the defendant, was sent to and received by the goaler ; and it also appeared, that informations had been sworn on the 15th of December (the day succeeding that of the arrest and imprisonment), against tire plaintiff, by one Michael Lennon, who was the brother of Felix Lennon, but not in the presence of the plaintiff. On these informations, and the subsequent informations of ,Felix Lennon, which were also sworn behind the back of the plaintiff and -before the defendant, on the 16th of December, he was detained in custody for three months, when he was brought up for trial at the Spring Assizes of 1838, on three several indictments that were found against him by the grand jury, and having been acquitted on them all, he was discharged from custody:; on which he brought his action of trespass for, false imprisonment against the defendant, after having given TRINITY TERM, THIRD VICTORIA. 419 him, as a magistrate, the proper notice of action, and sued out the writ in due time. At the trial the learned Judge, in his charge to the jury informed...