Coppinger v Bradley

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date07 June 1842
Date07 June 1842
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queen's Bench.

COPPINGER
and
BRADLEY.

Dand v. KingscoteENR 6 M. & W. 174.

ENR 6 Mees. & W. 197.

Green v. JonesENR 1 Saund. 299, N. 8.

Brancker v. MolyneuxUNK 1 Scott, N. R. 553.

Darby v. Smith 2 Moo. & Rob. 184.

Russell v. CoraENRENR 6 Mod. 127; S. C. 1 Salk. 119.

Reece v. Griffiths 5 Man. & Ry. 120.

Berry v. AdamsonENR 6 B. & C. 528.

Cash v. Trevor 3 Ir. Law Rep. 433.

James v. AskewENR 8 Ad. & El. 351.

Marshalsea case 10 Co. 369.

Cameron v. LightfootUNK 2 Wm. Bl. 1190

Barker v. Braham 3 wils. 368.

Philips v. BironENR 1 Str. 508.

Brig v. AdamsENRENR Comb. 235; S.C. Carth. 274.

Perkin v. Procter 2 Wils. 382.

Parsons v. Lloyd 3 Wils. 341.

Britton v. ColeENR 12 Mod. 175.

CodringtonENR 8 Ad. & El. 449.

Dicas v. Lord Brougham 1 Moo. & Rob. 309.

Simpson v. HillENR 1 Esp. 430.

Arrowsmith v. Le Mesurier 2 New R. 211.

Crowley v. ImpeyENR 2 Stark. 261.

Blessley v. SlomanENR 3 Mees. & W. 40.

Pococh v. Moore 1 Ry. & M. 321.

Withers v. HenleyENR Cro. Jac. 379.

Gyfford v. WoodgateENR 11 East, 297.

Frost's case 5 Co. 89.

Whalley v. PepperENR 7 C. & P. 506.

Barratt v. PriceENR 9 Bing. 566.

Collins v. YewensENR 10 Ad. & El. 570.

Robinson v. YewensENR 5 M. & W. 149; S. C. 7 Dowl. 380.

Jackson v. HumphrysENR 1 Salk. 273.

Benton v. SuttonUNK 1 B. & P. 24.

Rex v. PageENR 7 Price, 616; S. C. B. & B. 308.

Ex parte Bowes 4 Ves. jun. 168.

Drewe v. LainsonENR 11 Ad. & El. 537.

Parsons v. Loyd 3 Wils. 341.

Dand v. KingscoteENR 6 Mees. & W. 174.

Brancker v. Molyneux 1 Scott & N. R. 533.

MitchellENR 2 Bing. N. C. 619.

Ex parte Hawkins 4 Ves. jun. 691.

Pearson v. YewensENR 5 Bing. N. C.567.

Frost's case 5 Co. 89.

Salmon v. PercivalENR Cro. Car. 196.

The College of Physicians 12 Med. 386.

Crowley v. Impey 2 Starl. 261

Bryant v. Clutton 1 Mees. & M.410.

Blessley v. SlomanENR 3 Mees. & W. 42.

Humphrey v. Mitchell 2 Bing. N. R. 619.

Frost's caseUNK 5 Rep. 89.

Barratt v. PriceENR 9 Bing. 566.

Hodges v. Marks James, 485.

Jackson v. HumphreysENR 1 Salk, 273.

Barker v. Braham 3 Wil. 377.

Parsons v. Loyd 3 Wil. 341.

Barratt v. PriceENR 9 Bing. 566.

Whally v. PepperENR 7 C. & P. 506.

Barker v. Braham 3 Wilson, 368.

UNKUNK2 New Rep. 211; 1 New Rep. 255.

UNKCom. Dig. Execution, C. 10; Frost's case, 5 Rep. 89; 1st Resol.

Withers v. HenleyENR Cro. Jac. 379.

Crowley v. ImpeyENR 2 Stark. 261.

Bryant v. CluttonENRUNK 1 Mees. & W. 408; S. C. 2 Gale, 50.

Blessley v. slomanENR 3 Mees. & W. 40.

Genner v. SparksENR 1 Salk. 79.

Homer v. Battyn Bull. N. P. 62.

Arrowsmith v. Le MesurierUNK 2 N. R. 211.

Williams v. JonesENR Cas. temp. Hard. 298.

Gyfford v. WoodgateENR 11 East, 297.

Crowley ImpeyENR 2 Stark. 261.

Atkinson v. JamesonENR 5 T. R. 25.

James v. AskewENR 8 Ad. & El. 355.

Cash v. Trevor 3 Ir. Law Rep. 437.

Donlan v. BrettENR 10 B. & C. 117.

Bates v. PillingENR 2 Cr. & M. 374.

Robinson v. PowellENR 5 M. & W. 479.

Berry v. AdamsonENR 6 B. & C. 528.

Whalley v. PepperENR 7 C. & P. 506.

Tarleton v. Fisher Doug. 646.

Barratt v. PriceENR 9 Bing. 570.

Hodges v. MarksENR Cro. Jac. 486.

Withers v. HenleyENR Cro. Jac. 379.

Jackson v. HumphreysENR 1 Salk. 273.

Bryant v. CluttonENR 1 mees. & W. 408.

Blessley v. SlomanENR 3 Mees. & W. 40.

Oakley v. DavisENR 16 East, 86.

Bolton v. ShermanENR 2 Mees. & W. 402.

CASES AT LAW. 257 T. T. 1842. Queen'sBmett. Tan was an action ottrespass for assault-and-falielerprisonment, tried In trespass for false imprison before Bushe, C. J., at the Spring. Assizes 1841, for the county of meat, it apÂÂKildare. The facts of the case were as follows :-In Trinity Term 1831, r the 19th t on judgment was entered in the Court of Exchequer against the plaintiff, at September 1833 the suit of the defendant, on a bond and warrant of attorney, dated theplaintiffbeing 16th May 1831, for the sum of 325. 7s. 2d. In Trinity Term 1833, then in the custody of the a similar judgment was entered upon the same bond, and on the 19th Sheriff of KU-of September of that year, the plaintiff being in the custody of the dare at the suit of J. S. M. Sheriff of Kildare, at the suit of James Scott Molloy and others, the and others,the defendant issued a ca. sa. against him, under this judgment, marked for defendant is- sued a ca. sa. 188. 6s. 2d. In August 1834, the plaintiff was removed by habeas against him, on foot of a corpus from the gaol of Athy to the marshalsea. During the year 1839, judgment pre-the plaintiff, being still in confinement, obtained in various ways die- viously obtain- ed. During charges for several of the writs under which he was detained, and amongst the year 1839 others from that of the defendant, which the together with the judgment. plaintiff, being still in under which it was issued, was set aside by an order of the Court of confinement, obtained in Exchequer, dated 23rd of November 1839. On the 29th of November various ways following, when discharges from the greater number of the writs had from severalof been lodged, the defendant filed an affidavit of debt in the Court of the writs unÂÂQueen's Bench, against the plaintiff, for the sum of 248. 5s. 3d., and d was detained, issued a writ of hab. corp. ad resp. against him, which was executed and amongst others, from on the same day. On the 30th of November the last discharge was that of the de-lodged with the marshal, and the plaintiff remained in custody at the fendant, which , toge- suit of the defendant alone. On the 15th of January 1840, a motion ther with the judgment - was made before the Court of Queen's Bench, to discharge the plaintiff derudg me whichun it from custody under this writ, upon his entering a common appearance, was issued, was set aside by an order of the Court, on the 23rd of November 1839. There was slight evidence that the judgment was set aside for misconduct on the part of the defendant or his Attorney. Under these circumstances, upon the question whether the plaintiff having been in lawful custody at the suit of other creditors, during all the time that the defendant's detainer was laid on, an action of trespass did not lie at the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant:-Parmisaviisa, C.J., and Palmist, J., were of opinion that it did not; BuitTost, J., and CRAMPTON, dissentience. But, from the admission of illegal evidence, misdirection of the learned Judge, and excessive damages, the Court awarded a venire de novo ; PENNEFATHER, C. J., dissentience, holding that judgment should be entered for the defendant. Quere.-Would an action on the case lie under the circumstances of this case ? 258 CASES AT LAW. on the ground of the arrest having taken place against good faith, and pending the execution of the order of the Court of Exchequer of the 23rd of November. The Court made no rule on this motion, the defendant undertaking to give bail, which was accordingly done. No proceedings having been taken on the bail-piece for twelve months, notice was served by the plaintiff and his bail of their intention to apply for leave to enter an exoneretur, to which application the defendant offered to consent. It was for the imprisonment under the writ of ca. sa. in 1833, and the habeas corpus in 1839, that the plaintiff brought the present action. The declaration contained six counts,-five for assault and false imprisonment, with special damages, and the sixth for a common assault. The first count alleged that the plaintiff, on the 19th of September 1833, with force and arms assaulted the defendant, and compelled him to go to prison, and there kept and detained him for six years and four months, contrary to the laws and custom of the realm, and against the will of the plaintiff, to the damage of the plaintiff in 1000. The second was to the same effect, adding that the defendant falsely asserted and pretended that he had so taken and imprisoned the plaintiff under a writ of ca. sa. sued out of the Court of Exchequer. The third was similar to the first, with the addition that the defendant falsely pretended he had arrested and imprisoned the plaintiff under a writ of ca. sa., sued contrary to the laws of the realm, and alleged that the defendant, during the imprisonment of the plaintiff, had intermeddled and prevented the creditors of the plaintiff from compounding with him for their debts or otherwise settling them. The fourth was the same as the third, omitting the allegation of the defendant's having intermeddled in plaintiff's affairs. The fifth alleged an assault, on the 19th of SepÂÂtember 1839 (this being erroneously put for 1833), and a false imprisonÂÂment for the same period of six years and four months, adding that whilst in confinement, the defendant caused the plaintiff to be detained under a writ of hab. corp. ad resp., to his damage, &c. The sixth count was for a common assault, on the 19th of September 1833. The defendant pleaded, first, not guilty ; and subsequently to each of the counts respectively, the same plea, viz., actio non, because before the said time, &c., viz., on the 25th of November 1839, the plaintiff being then in lawful custody, the defendant caused a writ of hab. corp. ad resp. marked for bail to a certain amount, to be issued out of the Queen's Bench, under which the plaintiff was detained in custody for the period in each of the counts respectively mentioned. The plaintiff by his replication joined issue on the first plea; and in reply to the remainder, admitted the detainer under the habeas corpus, but new assigned the trespass as alleged in the several counts of the declaration complained of in the fifth count, upon the 19th of September 1833, instead of 1839. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the trespasses thus newly assigned, and CASES AT LAW. 269 the plaintiff joined issue. In support of his case the plaintiff gave in T. T. 1842. evidence at the trial an attested copy of a judgment in the Court of Queen'sBench. Exchequer, for 325. 7s. 2d., against the plaintiff, at suit of the defend COPPINDER ant, obtained in Trinity Term 1833...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Thomas Murray v John Rose Byrne and John Talbot Byrne
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 5 Junio 1855
    ...ROSE BYRNE and JOHN TALBOT BYRNE. Kinning v. BuchananENR 8 C. B. 271. In re DicksonIR 3 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 101. Coppinger v. Bradley 5 Ir. Law Rep. 257. Andrews v. Marris 1 Q. B. 3. Houlden v. Smith 14 Q. B. 841. Green v. Elgie 5 Q. B. 99. Cooper v. Harding 7 Q. B. 928. Carratt v. Morley 1 Q......
  • Charles Smith v William Holbrooke and John Butler
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 14 Enero 1846
    ...M & W. 110 Meredith v. FlasxmanENR 5 C. & P. 99. Aitken v. Bedwell M & Mal. 68. Smith v. ShawENR 10 B. & C. 277. Coppinger v. Bradley 5 Ir. Law Rep. 257. Hudson v. M'Allen 4 Ir. Law Rep. 438; S. C. L. & T. 299. Kelcey v. MinterENR 1 Bing. N. C. 721. Wilson v. Tumman 6 M. & Gr.236. Jarmain v......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT